LIBRARY 

UNIVERSITY  OF 
CALIFORNIA 

SAN  DIEGO 


t?      ^ 


OA 


NOTES  AND  COMMENTS 


ON 


INDUSTRIAL,  ECONOMIC,  POLITICAL, 
AND  HISTORICAL  SUBJECTS. 


BY 

^ 

JAMES   M.   SWANK, 

SECRETARY  AND  GENERAL  MANAGER  OF  THE  AMERICAN  IRON  AND  STEEL  ASSOCIATION 

FROM  1872  TO  1897.    AUTHOR  OF  A  HISTORY  OF  THE  MANUFACTURE  OF  IRON  IN 

ALL  AGES.    MEMBER  OF  THE  HISTORICAL  SOCIETY  OF  PENNSYLVANIA. 


Note  it  in  a  book,  that  it  may  be  for  the  time  to  come.— Isaiah   xxx.  8. 


PHILADELPHIA  : 

THE  AMERICAN  IRON  AND  STEEL  ASSOCIATION. 

1897. 


Eutered,  according  to  act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1897, 

BY    JAMES   M.   SWANK, 
In  the  office  of  the  Librarian  of  Congress,  at  Washington. 


Printed  by 
ALLEN,   LANE    &    SCOTT, 

Nos.  1211-1213  Clover  Street, 
Philadelphia. 


PREFACE. 


THE  thirty  chapters  which  compose  this  volume  were  not 
written  that  they  might  be  gathered  into  a  book.  Some  of 
them  were  written  many  years  ago  and  others  in  later  years. 
Eeferences  to  recent  events  have  been  added  whenever  neces- 
sary. As  the  editor  of  the  publications  of  the  American  Iron 
and  Steel  Association  during  the  last  twenty-five  years  it  has 
been  my  duty  and  pleasure  to  present  to  the  readers  of  these 
publications  industrial,  economic,  and  other  facts  of  special  in- 
terest, and  to  accompany  them  with  such  comments  as  seemed 
to  be  pertinent  and  necessary.  The  chapters  which  are  bound 
up  in  the  present  volume  have  been  selected  from  these  edito- 
rial contributions.  In  making  these  selections  I  have  confined 
them  in  the  main  to  such  subjects  as  are  likely  to  possess  pres- 
ent interest  for  students  of  our  industrial  and  economic  history. 
The  few  concluding  chapters  which  do  not  relate  to  these  sub- 
jects are  added  because,  alike  with  the  chapters  which  precede 
them,  they  are  relevant  to  that  revival  of  interest  in  every 
phase  of  American  history  which  is  now  everywhere  so  appar- 
ent. Many  chapters  necessarily  embody  only  introductory  and 
suggestive  comments  on  the  subjects  to  which  they  relate. 

The  creeds  of  political  parties  in  our  country  have  long  ex- 
pressed directly  opposite  views  concerning  the  best  methods  of 
promoting  our  industrial  prosperity,  one  party  believing  in  the 
fostering  influence  of  tariff  legislation  and  the  other  party  op- 
posing this  policy.  In  several  of  the  chapters  which  follow  I 
have  recorded  the  results  of  these  conflicting  policies.  First, 
however,  considerable  space  has  been  devoted  to  the  experience 
of  Great  Britain  in  building  up  its  industries  by  protective  du- 
ties and  through  other  measures  resting  for  support  directly  up- 


IV  PREFACE. 

on  the  British  Government.  The  industrial  history  of  our  own 
country  can  not  be  even  briefly  summarized  without  reference 
to  that  of  the  mother  country,  Great  Britain  having  constantly 
sought  to  control  our  industrial  development  from  colonial  times 
to  the  present  time.  Mention  of  the  industrial  policy  of  Great 
Britain  in  these  pages  has  also  been  necessary  because  of  the 
prevalence  in  our  own  country  during  the  greater  part  of  our 
national  existence  of  a  formidable  political  sentiment  that  is  fa- 
vorable to  the  present  British  policy  of  free  trade.  The  British 
theories  underlying  the  Wilson  tariff  of  1894  were  precisely  the 
same  as  those  upon  which  the  Walker  tariff  of  1846  was  based. 
In  fifty  years  this  country  had  moved  in  a  cycle  of  so-called 
political  economy  and  had  apparently  learned  nothing. 

American  workingmen  may  well  study  the  treatment  that 
the  workingmen  of  Great  Britain  have  usually  received  from 
their  employers  and  from  the  aristocratic  classes.  In  two  of  the 
chapters  of  this  volume  I  have  only  touched  upon  this  great 
subject.  Those  who  would  know  more  of  the  hard  life  of  Brit- 
ish toilers  should  read  chapters  5  and  16  of  Fifty  Years  Ago,  by 
Walter  Besant,  published  in  1888 ;  In  Darkest  England,  by  General 
Booth,  published  in  1890  ;  Masses  and  Classes,  by  Henry  Tuckley, 
published  in  1893  ;  and  The  White  Slaves  of  England,  by  Robert 
H.  Sherard,  published  in  1897.  These  are  all  recent  publica- 
tions. Saddest  of  all  let  them  read  the  fulsome  dispatches  from 
London  during  the  Queen's  Jubilee,  in  June  last,  which  told  of 
the  dinner  given  by  the  Princess  of  Wales  to  the  poor  of  that 
city.  "About  three  hundred  thousand  denizens  of  the  slums  were 
sumptuously  entertained."  This  was  in  the  Queen's  capital  in  1897. 
We  do  not  want  British  industrial  conditions  in  our  country. 

The  discontent  with  existing  conditions  which  has  so  widely 
prevailed  in  our  own  country  in  recent  years,  the  practically 
unrestricted  immigration  of  foreigners  into  our  country,  the  ne- 
cessity for  establishing  steamship  lines  to  all  parts  of  the  world, 
and  the  mistaken  policy  of  reciprocity  are  subjects  of  present 
interest  to  which  a  few  chapters  of  this  book  are  devoted. 

No.  261  SOUTH  FOUBTH  STEEET,  PHILADELPHIA,  December  31,  1897. 


CO^TEJ^TS. 


CHAPTER  I. 

ENGLAND  ONCE  THE  INDUSTRIAL  SERVANT  OF  OTHER 
COUNTRIES. 

England  almost  entirely  an  agricultural  country  down  to  the  16th  century— 
For  centuries  foreign  merchants  ruled  the  trade  of  England  absolutely- 
Other  countries  supplied  her  with  manufactured  goods— Even  English 
agriculture  did  not  flourish— Poverty  of  the  English  people  while  their 
energies  were  chiefly  devoted  to  agriculture _ Pages  1-7 

CHAPTER  II. 
BRITISH   INDUSTRIES^DEVELOPED   BY   PROTECTION. 

England  began  in  a  feeble  way  to  diversify  her  industries  by  protective  du- 
ties in  the  14th  century— Application  of  the  protective  policy  long  limited 
to  the  crudest  English  products— In  the  15th  and  16th  centuries  legisla- 
tion for  the  benefit  of  English  industries  gradually  grew  more  restrictive 
and  effective— But  it  was  not  until  Queen  Elizabeth's  reign  (1558-1603) 
that  England  became  a  leading  manufacturing  and  commercial  nation — 
England  now  began  to  seek  foreign  markets  for  the  sale  of  her  finished 
products— Under  Cromwell  the  protective  policy  was  further  extended, 
and  by  means  of  the  navigation  acts  of  his  time  the  foreign  trade  of 
England  was  greatly  enlarged— Blackstone's  account  of  England's  pro- 
tective policy— Her  protective  policy  became  a  prohibitory  policy  in  the 
18th  century— The  protective  policy  still  apparent  in  British  steamship 
subsidies Pages  8-22 

CHAPTER  III. 

THE   BRITISH  WORKINQMAN   UNDER   VICTORIA   AND   HER 
IMMEDIATE   PREDECESSORS. 

The  Jubilee  of  Queen  Victoria  in  1897— The  prosperity  of  Great  Britain  dur- 
ing her  long  reign  due  largely  to  the  extension  of  the  foreign  trade  of 
that  country— Warlike  spirit  of  British  manufacturing  and  commercial 
competition— Effect  of  the  fierceness  of  this  competition  upon  British 
workingmen  and  their  families — Efforts  of  British  workingmen  to  better 
their  condition  always  opposed  by  the  ruling  classes  of  Great  Britain- 
Some  examples  of  this  policy— British  workingmen  systematically  under- 
paid and  degraded  that  British  goods  may  be  cheaply  produced— Testi- 
mony upon  this  subject  of  various  English  writers Pages  23-33 


vi  CONTENTS. 

CHAPTEE  IV. 

THE  HOPELESS   POOR   OF   GREAT   BRITAIN. 

England  under  Queen  Victoria  not  merry  with  the  daily  life  of  her  working 
people— Testimony  of  Professor  James  E.  Thorold  Rogers,  Sir  Edward 
Sullivan,  Dr.  Edward  Young,  Hon.  William  E.  Dodge,  Benjamin  Disraeli, 
General  William  Booth,  and  others  ;  also  of  several  leading  English  news- 
papers—Destitution and  wretchedness  of  the  London  poor— Pitiable  condi- 
tion of  women  and  children  in  Great  Britain  who  are  poor....  Pages  34-47 

CHAPTER  V. 
THE   BRITISH   POLICY  OF   FREE   TRADE. 

Mr.  Gladstone's  claim  that  free  trade  has  improved  the  wages  of  British 
workingmen  refuted  by  the  Sheffield  Telegraph  and  the  London  Times- 
Testimony  of  Charles  Kingsley  and  Cardinal  Manning  concerning  the  ill 
results  of  the  teachings  of  the  Manchester  school— British  agriculture  not 
prosperous  under  free  trade— True  causes  of  the  improvement  in  the  wa- 
ges of  British  workingmen— Mr.  Gladstone  a  poor  prophet Pages  48-53 

CHAPTEE  VI. 
THE   DESTRUCTION   OF   IRISH   MANUFACTURES. 

Irish  industries  systematically  repressed  and  stamped  out  by  England— Mr. 
Commissioner  Mac  Carthy,  Edmund  Burke,  and  Dean  Swift  tell  how  their 
destruction  was  accomplished— William  Cobbett  and  Judge  Byles  explain 
the  consequences— Futile  protests  by  both  houses  of  the  Irish  Parliament 
against  the  withdrawal  of  protection  from  Irish  industries  by  the  Act  of 
Union  of  1801— Remarkable  decline  in  the  population  of  Ireland  from  1841 
to  1891— Further  proofs  by  Thomas  Francis  Meagher  and  Professor  Robert 
Ellis  Thompson  of  the  destruction  of  Irish  manufactures Pages  54-60 

CHAPTEE  VII. 
AN   IMPERIAL   BRITISH   ZOLLVEREIN. 

Free  trade  not  popular  with  all  classes  in  Great  Britain— The  proposed  Brit- 
ish zollverein,  or  customs-union,  a  protective  movement— Reasons  why 
the  scheme  will  not  succeed Pages  61-64 

CHAPTEE  VIII. 
BRITISH  STEAMSHIP   SUBSIDIES. 

Great  Britain's  enormous  annual  subsidies  to  steamship  companies— Judge 
Kelley  and  John  Roach,  also  the  Glasgow  Herald  and  the  London  En- 
gineering, cite  the  proofs  of  the  payments  of  these  subsidies— Colonel 
William  F.  Prosser  explains  the  benefits  of  steamship  subsidies  to  British 
trade— List  of  European  subsidized  steamship  companies  in  1896 — The 
United  States  should  also  adopt  the  policy  of  subsidizing  steamship  lines 
to  all  parts  of  the  world Pages  65-69 


CONTENTS.  Vll 

CHAPTER  IX. 
TARIFF   LEGISLATION   FROM   WASHINGTON  TO   McKINLEY. 

The  protective  policy  approved  by  the  founders  of  our  Government— The 
protection  of  American  labor  one  of  the  reasons  for  the  adoption  of  the 
Constitution  of  1787— Our  first  tariff  act  was  a  measure  of  protection- 
Alexander  Hamilton's  masterly  report  in  1791  in  support  of  a  protective 
policy— Senator  John  P.  Jones's  philosophical  speech  in  1890  a  worthy  com- 
panion of  Hamilton's  report— The  Morrill  tariff  of  1861  the  first  in  a  long 
series  of  protective  tariff  enactments  extending  to  1894 — The  Dingley  tariff 
of  1897  a  thoroughly  protective  measure Pages  70-82 

CHAPTER  X. 
THE  TARIFFS  OF  1842,  1846,  AND  1857. 

President  Tyler's  tribute  to  the  beneficial  effects  of  the  protective  tariff  of 
1842— Injurious  effects  of  the  revenue  tariff  of  1846  upon  our  iron  industry 
—Testimony  of  Cooper  &  Hewitt— Statement  by  W.  J.  Parsons— Testimony 
of  Professor  Francis  Bowen— Evil  results  of  ad  valorem  duties  illustrated 
by  citations  of  iron  prices— Extract  from  President  Fillmore's  message  in 
1852— The  hard  times  of  185§-«-Extract  from  the  New  York  Tribune— The 
disastrous  consequences  of  the  revenue  tariff  of  1857— Extract  from  the 
Boston  Sentinel— Testimony  of  Judge  Kelley. Pages  83-92 

CHAPTER  XI. 
TARIFF  LEGISLATION   FROM  1870  TO  1897. 

The  Schenck  tariff  bill  of  1870— The  Morrison  tariff  bill  of  1876  not  con- 
sidered by  the  House— The  Wood  tariff  bill  of  1878  defeated— The  Cov- 
ert steel-rail  bill  of  1880  defeated  in  the  Ways  and  Means  Committee— 
The  Tariff  Commission  of  1882— The  tariff  of  1883— Mr.  Morrison's  horizon- 
tal reduction  tariff  bill  of  1884  defeated— President  Cleveland,  in  his  first 
annual  message,  in  1885,  recommends  a  reduction  of  duties — Mr.  Morri- 
son introduces  early  in  1886  another  tariff  bill,  which  is  defeated— Mr. 
Morrison  introduces  late  in  1886  still  another  bill  proposing  a  reduction 
of  duties,  which  is  also  defeated — In  December,  1887,  President  Cleveland 
sends  to  Congress  his  celebrated  message  again  recommending  a  reduc- 
tion of  duties— Mr.  Mills  introduces  a  tariff  reduction  bill  in  1888,  which 
passed  the  House  but  did  not  pass  the  Senate— The  Senate  protective  tariff 
bill  of  1888  passed  by  that  body  in  1889,  but  not  considered  by  the  House 
—The  McKinley  protective  tariff  of  1890— The  Wilson  revenue  tariff  of 
1894— The  Dingley  protective  tariff  of  1897 Pages  93-106 

CHAPTER  XII. 

ALEXANDER   HAMILTON. 

Hamilton's  unanswerable  report  in  favor  of  protection— Philadelphia,  in 
which  city  it  was  written,  the  foremost  protectionist  city  in  the  Union — 
Hamilton's  memory  not  sufficiently  honored Pages  107-108 


Vlll  CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER  XIII. 

TARIFF   CONVENTIONS   IN   THE   OLDEN   TIME. 

A  national  tariff  convention  at  Harrisburg,  Pennsylvania,  in  1827— A  national 
tariff  convention  at  New  York  in  1831 — Two  conventions  of  iron  manu- 
facturers in  1849,  one  at  Pittsburgh  and  another  at  Philadelphia,  called 
to  protest  against  the  tariff  of  1846— A  national  tariff  convention  at  New 
York  in  1881— Organization  of  the  American  Iron  Association  in  1855  and 
of  the  American  Iron  and  Steel  Association  in  1864 Pages  109-117 

CHAPTER  XIV. 

WHY  THE  SOUTHERN  CONFEDERACY  FAILED. 

Provision  in  the  Constitution  of  the  Confederate  States  prohibiting  protective 
duties— The  South  seceded  partly  to  establish  free  trade— Testimony  of 
Congressman  George  D.  Tillman,  of  South  Carolina— The  New  Orleans 
Daily  City  Item  discusses  the  economic  conditions  of  the  Confederacy- 
General  Richard  Taylor,  of  Louisiana,  pays  a  tribute  to  the  superior 
economic  conditions  of  the  Northern  States— The  South  now  diversifying 
its  industries Pages  118-120 

CHAPTER  XV. 
PROTECTION  IS   NOT  MONOPOLY. 

Monopolies  not  necessarily  evils— Examples  of  beneficial  monopolies— Monop- 
olies not  created  by  protection— They  exist  in  free  trade  England— A  mo- 
nopoly which  was  long  maintained  by  the  American  Congress  for  the  ex- 
clusive benefit  of  foreign  manufacturers Pages  121-124 

CHAPTER  XVI. 
ABANDONED  NEW   ENGLAND   FARMS. 

Farms  in  New  England  not  abandoned  because  protection  is  hostile  to  agri- 
culture—Notable testimony  in  an  address  in  1857  or  1858  that  New  Eng- 
land farms  were  then  abandoned Pages  125-127 

CHAPTER  XVII. 
CHEAPENING  THE   NECESSARIES    OF   LIFE. 

Selfishness  and  the  free  trader  becloud  the  question  of  cheap  prices— The 
free  trader  endeavors  to  set  class  against  class— Cheapness  that  may  be 
obtained  without  degrading  labor— This  kind  of  cheapness  the  result  of 
protection— Cheapness  not  the  chief  good Pages  128-131 

CHAPTER  XVIII. 
CAPITAL   THE   FRIEND   OF   LABOR. 

Henry  C.  Carey's  favorite  quotation— A  paraphrase  for  the  consideration  of 
American  workingmen— The  more  capital  the  more  employment  for  la- 
bor—Most of  our  rich  men  were  once  poor  men Pages  132-136 


CONTENTS.  IX 

CHAPTER  XIX. 
OUR   COLONIAL   IRON   INDUSTRY. 

Beginning  of  our  colonial  iron  industry  in  Virginia  and  Massachusetts— The 
ancestors  of  Washington  and  Lincoln  were  ironmakers,  as  were  also  sev- 
eral of  the  noted  men  of  the  Revolutionary  period— Statistics  of  our 
colonial  iron  industry—  England  discouraged  the  manufacture  of  iron  in 
the  colonies — Influences  which  retarded  the  development  of  the  iron  in- 
dustry in  Virginia  and  stimulated  the  industry  in  other  colonies— Char- 
acteristics of  our  colonial  iron  industry— The  decline  of  the  iron  indus- 
try in  New  England  and  in  North  and  South  Carolina — New  York  and 
New  Jersey  not  maintaining  their  colonial  prestige Pages  137-144 

CHAPTER  XX. 

REMARKABLE   DEVELOPMENT   OF   OUR   IRON   AND  STEEL 
INDUSTRIES  SINCE   1860. 

An  era  of  great  activity  and  unexampled  progress  in  these  industries  opened 
with  the  enactment  of  the  Morrill  tariff  in  1861  and  the  beginning  of  our 
civil  war— Summary  of  this  progress  from  1861  to  1897  in  the  various 
branches  of  production— Old  methods  of  manufacture  abandoned— "  How 
far  is  it  to  the  next  forge?"— All  iron  and  steel  products  greatly  cheap- 
ened since  1861— Phenomenal  reduction  in  the  prices  of  steel  rails — Rail- 
roads great  consumers  of  iron  and  steel— The  United  States  leads  the 
world  in  the  production  of  iron  and  steel— The  census  of  1890  shows 
how  great  is  the  investment  of  capital  and  how  large  the  number  of 
workmen  employed  and  the  wages  paid  in  our  iron  and  steel  industries 
—Depression  in  these  industries  in  1893  and  1894  and  again  in  18%  and 
the  early  part  of  1897— The  future  of  these  industries. Pages  145-159 

CHAPTER  XXI. 
REVELATIONS   OF   AN   OLD   LEDGER. 

An  iron  town  in  Pennsylvania  early  in  the  nineteenth  century— Primitive 
methods  of  transportation— Colonial  methods  of  bookkeeping— Pounds, 
shillings,  and  pence— Tons,  hundredweights,  quarters,  and  pounds— Early 
forges  and  an  early  furnace  in  the  Alleghenies Pages  160-166 

CHAPTER  XXII. 
THE   EARLY  HISTORY   OF   PITTSBURGH. 

Pittsburgh  the  centre  of  the  iron,  steel,  bituminous  coal,  and  glass  industries 
of  the  world— The  site  of  Fort  Pitt  selected  in  1753  by  Washington— His 
prominent  part  in  the  military  operations  at  Pittsburgh  and  in  its  vicin- 
ity which  resulted  in  driving  the  French  from  the  Ohio  Valley  in  1758— 
His  first  and  only  surrender— The  important  battle  of  Bushy  Run— Wash- 
ington's last  visit  to  Pittsburgh  in  1770— Leading  events  in  the  early  his- 
tory of  Pittsburgh  —  Development  of  its  coal  and  iron  industries  —  Its 
present  prominence— "The  State  of  Allegheny" Pages  167-176 


X  CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER  XXIII. 
THE   RESTRICTION   OF   IMMIGRATION. 

Statistics  of  immigration  from  1789  to  1896— Beginning  of  the  great  flood  of 
immigration  dates  from  1845— Causes  which  influenced  the  heavy  immi- 
gration half  a  century  ago— Comparatively  few  immigrants  from  Italy  or 
the  Slavic  countries  of  Europe  prior  to  1876— Large  arrivals  since  that 
year— Statistics  of  Chinese  immigration  from  1853  to  1888— Opposition  to 
immigration  dates  from  about  1844 — Government  action  directly  respon- 
sible for  unrestricted  and  excessive  immigration. Pages  177-183 

CHAPTER  XXIV. 
THE   DRIFT   OF   POPULATION  TO   THE   GREAT   CITIES. 

Census  statistics  of  urban  and  rural  population— City  advantages  now  pos- 
sessed by  the  country  and  by  country  towns— Farmers  are  large  gainers 
by  the  progressive  ideas  of  the  last  fifty  years Pages  184-188 

CHAPTER  XXV. 

THE  WESTERN   FARMERS5  DISCONTENT. 

The  discontent  of  Western  farmers  the  result  of  causes  beyond  anybody's 
control— Western  farmers  not  discriminated  against  in  tariff  or  other 
legislation— The  homestead  law— Government  land  grants  to  Western 
railroad  companies— The  Department  of  Agriculture  established  for  the 
benefit  of  farmers— Agricultural  colleges  established  and  endowed  by 
grants  of  public  lands— The  interstate  commerce  law  enacted  at  the 
request  of  farmers— Tariff  legislation  for  their  special  benefit— The  real 
cause  of  hard  times  for  Western  farmers Pages  189-194 

CHAPTER  XXVI. 

HISTORY   OF  RECIPROCITY   LEGISLATION. 

History  of  the  insertion  of  the  reciprocity  policy  in  the  McKinley  tariff  of 
1890— The  sugar  bounty  provision  of  that  act  an  entirely  new  feature  in 
our  tariff  legislation— Fishing  bounties— A  sugar  bounty  never  approved 
in  a  Republican  national  platform— Reciprocity  treaties  with  Canada  and 
Hawaii— Revenue  lost  under  the  reciprocity  treaties  negotiated  under  the 
tariff  act  of  1890— Our  exports  of  iron  and  steel  not  helped  by  reciprocity 
—Reciprocity  in  the  Dingley  tariff— Our  experience  with  Canadian  reci- 
procity described  by  Senator  Morrill Pages  195-201 

CHAPTER  XXVII. 
HOW  SCHUYLER  COLFAX  ROSE   TO   BE  VICE   PRESIDENT. 

The  House  of  Representatives  has  had  two  Speakers  who  were  editors  by 
profession,  Schuyler  Colfax  and  James  G.  Elaine— Dinner  in  honor  of  Mr. 
Colfax's  election  to  the  Speakership  in  1863— Address  of  Samuel  Wilkeson 
—"Folks  depend  on  him"— Secret  of  Mr.  Colfax's  success Pages 202-205 


CONTENTS.  Xl 

CHAPTER  XXVIII. 

BUCKEYES  IN  AMERICAN   HISTORY. 

Virginia  and  Ohio  most  prominent  of  all  the  States  in  furnishing  the  country 
with  distinguished  men— Since  the  surrender  at  Appomattox  Virginia  has 
lost  her  ancient  prestige  in  this  particular— Ohio  has  never  relaxed  her 
efforts  in  this  direction  since  her  admission  into  the  Union  in  1803— list 
of  Ohio's  most  prominent  civilians,  including  four  Presidents  and  two 
others  born  within  her  borders— List  of  Ohio's  most  prominent  military 
heroes,  including  Grant,  Sherman,  and  Sheridan— List  of  Ohio's  promi- 
nent literary  men  and  women. Pages  206-210 

CHAPTER  XXTX. 
OUR   NEARNESS   TO   REVOLUTIONARY   TIMES. 

It  is  only  a  little  over  a  hundred  years  since  Washington's  inauguration- 
Many  persons  now  living  have  known  Revolutionary  soldiers— Lafayette 
died  as  late  as  1834— Two  Presidents,  Jackson  and  John  Quincy  Adams, 
who  were  born  in  1767,  lived  to  1845  and  1848  respectively— Charles  Car- 
roll of  Carrollton,  one  of  the  signers  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence, 
lived  until  1832— Notable  Phila^elphians  who  have  known  Revolutionary 
heroes— Richard  W.  Thompson,  who  is  still  living  at  Terre  Haute,  can 
describe  the  personal  appearance  of  Jefferson  and  Madison,  who  were 
born  in  1743  and  1749  respectively— Senator  Morrill  can  describe  the  per- 
sonal appearance  of  Monroe  and  Judge  Paine,  and  Frederick  Fraley  can 
describe  the  personal  appearance  of  Monroe  and  Chief  Justice  Marshall- 
Looking  backward  one  hundred  and  fifty  years- Pages  211-217 

CHAPTER  XXX. 
HONORING  THE  MIGHTY   DEAD. 

Notable  address  of  ex-Minister  Edward  J.  Phelps  in  1891— Our  country's  great 
men  are  fitly  honored — Conspicuous  examples  of  the  honors  that  have 
been  paid  to  our  deceased  heroes  and  sages— Bancroft's  eulogy  of  Lincoln 
and  Elaine's  eulogy  of  Garfield  contrasted— Elaine's  eloquent  words  in 
closing  his  eulogy  of  Garfield— A  remarkable  peroration— Harrison's  un- 
equaled  eulogy  of  Grant Pages  218-223 


CHAPTER  I. 

ENGLAND    ONCE    THE    INDUSTRIAL    SERVANT    OF    OTHER 
COUNTRIES. 

UNTIL  in  very  recent  years  British  writers  on  free  trade 
never  tired  in  commending  to  the  people  of  the  United 
States  the  policy  of  devoting  their  energies  mainly  to  agri- 
culture, as  if  they  had  just  been  emancipated  from  barba- 
rism and  possessed  no  higher  capabilities  and  no  other  re- 
sources than  those  which  pertain  to  the  most  primitive  of  all 
occupations.  The  motive  in  giving  this  advice  was,  howev- 
er, not  past  finding  out.  The  Birmingham  Gazette  remark- 
ed in  1875:  "While  England  and  America  are  in  a  great 
measure  one  in  language,  literature,  laws,  arts,  and  religion, 
the  mercantile  interests  of  the  two  nations  are  not  identical" 
The  Gazette  and  other  organs  of  British  public  opinion  did 
not  want  the  mercantile  interests  of  the  two  countries  to  be 
identical ;  their  policy  and  that  of  the  British  Government 
has  always  been  the  suppression  of  all  American  industries 
except  agriculture. 

When  we  were  still  British  colonies  the  first  Lord  Shef- 
field declared  that  "the  only  use  and  advantage  of  Ameri- 

• 

can  colonies  or  West  India  islands  is  the  monopoly  of  their 
consumption  and  the  carriage  of  their  produce."  Bancroft 
says  that  "  England,  in  its  relations  with  other  States,  sought 
a  convenient  tariff";  in  the  colonies  it  prohibited  industry." 
In  1816  Lord  Brougham,  in  a  speech  in  Parliament  advo- 
cating the  increased  exportation  of  British  goods  to  the 


2  NOTES  AND  COMMENTS. 

United  States,  declared  that  "it  was  well  worth  while  to  in- 
cur a  loss  upon  the  first  exportation,  in  order  by  the  glut  to 
stifle  in  the  cradle  those  rising  manufactures  in  the  United 
States  which  the  war  has  forced  into  existence  contrary  to 
the  natural  course  of  things."  Mr.  Robinson,  a  member  of 
Parliament,  said  in  a  memorable  speech  quoted  by  Henry 
Clay  in  1832  :  "  Other  nations  knew,  as  well  as  the  noble 
lord  opposite  and  those  who  acted  with  him,  what  we  meant 
by  free  trade  was  nothing  more  nor  less  than,  by  means  of 
the  great  advantages  we  enjoyed,  to  get  a  monopoly  of  all 
their  markets  for  our  manufactures,  and  to  prevent  them, 
one  and  all,  from  ever  becoming  manufacturing  nations."  In 
1843  the  London  Spectator  said :  "  More  general  considera- 
tions tend  to  show  that  the  trade  between  the  two  countries, 
most  beneficial  to  both,  must  be  what  is  commonly  called  a 
colonial  trade;  the  new-settled  country  importing  the  man- 
ufactures of  the  old  in  exchange  for  its  own  raw  produce. 
In  all  economical  relations  the  United  States  still  stand  to 
England  in  the  relation  of  colony  to  mother  country." 

By  the  help  of  our  policy  of  protection  to  home  indus- 
tries the  United  States  is  now  fully  abreast  of  Great  Brit- 
ain as  a  manufacturing  country,  and  the  advice  of  British 
writers  to  confine  our  energies  to  agriculture  has  given  way 
to  serious  apprehension  concerning  the  manufacturing  and 
commercial  prosperity  of  their  own  country,  Continental  and 
American  manufacturers  having  successfully  invaded  the 
home  markets  of  the  United  Kingdom,  as  well  as  those  co- 
lonial and  other  markets  which  British  manufacturers  once 
regarded  as  their  exclusive  possession. 

England,  always  the  greater  part  of  Great  Britain,  once 
pursued  the  unwise  policy  her  free  traders  have  commended 


GREAT  BRITAIN'S  INDUSTRIAL  POLICY.  3 

to  us.  This  was  particularly  so  from  the  twelfth  century  to 
the  sixteenth  century,  when  all  England  was  almost  entirely 
an  agricultural  country,  her  people  being  chiefly  supplied  with 
manufactured  goods  by  enterprising  merchants  from  other 
countries,  who  employed  the  vessels  of  these  countries  in  mak- 
ing their  exchanges.  "  Even  iron  was  imported  from  the  Con- 
tinent for  the  use  of  English  blacksmiths."  In  commercial 
and  manufacturing  enterprise  England  was  greatly  excelled 
down  to  the  sixteenth  century  by  the  powerful  cities  of  Italy, 
Spain,  Germany,  and  the  Netherlands,  while  Portugal  and 
France  were  fairly  her  rivals.  Commerce  and  manufactures 
were  so  little  understood  by  the  people  of  England  in  the 
thirteenth  century  that  important  concessions  were  made  by 
the  government  to  the  powerful  merchants  of  the  Hanseatic 
League  to  induce  them  to  settle  in  England,  with  permission 
to  manufacture  abroad  the  goods  that  the  English  people 
would  buy.  For  a  hundred  years  this  great  corporation  en- 
grossed almost  the  whole  of  the  foreign  trade  of  England, 
using  its  own  shipping  and  furnishing  employment  to  its 
own  factories  on  the  Continent ;  and  for  three  hundred  years, 
down  to  the  reign  of  Queen  Elizabeth,  it  was  a  powerful 
competitor  with  other  foreigners  and  with  native  Englishmen 
for  the  possession  of  that  trade.  Foreign  merchants  ruled 
the  trade  of  England  absolutely  down  to  the  sixteenth  cen- 
tury. In  1483  an  English  statute  referred  to  the  "  merchant 
strangers  of  the  nation  of  Italy,  who  bring  and  convey  from 
the  parts  beyond  sea  great  substance  of  wares  and  merchan- 
dises .  .  at  their  pleasure  and  there  sell  the  same  as  well 
by  retail  as  otherwise." 

The  manufactured  goods  with  which  the  people  of  Eng- 
land were  supplied  by  foreign  merchants  were  largely  paid 


4  NOTES  AND  COMMENTS. 

for  with  the  raw  products  of  English  farms  and  mines  and 
with  the  fish  caught  upon  English  coasts.  Macpherson,  in 
his  Annals  of  Commerce,  states  that,  in  the  fourteenth  cen- 
tury, "  England  imported  none  of  the  raw  materials  for  man- 
ufactures which  are  so  largely  imported  into  Great  Britain 
to-day,  while  her  exports  consisted  almost  entirely  of  the 
most  valuable  raw  materials,  and  of  cloths  in  an  unfinish- 
ed state,  which  may  also  be  classed  among  raw  materials." 
The  land  was  also  drained  of  its  precious  metals.  In  the  fif- 
teenth century  a  commercial  writer  complained  that  the  for- 
eigners "  bear  the  gold  out  of  this  land,  and  suck  the  thrift 
out  of  our  hand,  as  the  wasp  sucketh  honey  out  of  the  bee." 
Wool  was  a  principal  article  of  export  in  the  thirteenth  and 
fourteenth  centuries.  "Raising  and  spreading  a  story  that 
wool  would  not  be  suflered  to  be  exported  in  such  a  year 
.  .  was,  on  account  of  its  being  an  injury  to  trade,  pun- 
ished by  indictment."  The  Flemish  woolen  manufacturers, 
who  bought  English  wool,  had  attained  such  prominence  in 
the  thirteenth  century  and  their  products  such  celebrity  that 
an  old  writer  declared  that  "  all  the  world  was  clothed  in 
English  wool  wrought  by  the  Flemish  weavers."  Foreigners 
manufactured  English  wool  and  finished  English  woolen 
cloths  and  sold  them  back  to  England  with  a  profit.  It  was 
this  condition  of  affairs  that  gave  rise  to  the  proverb :  "  The 
stranger  buys  of  the  Englishman  the  fox's  skin  for  a  groat 
and  sells  him  the  tail  for  a  shilling." 

While  England  was  thus  limiting  her  energies  to  a  rude 
agriculture  and  to  the  exportation  of  raw  products  it  is  re- 
corded that  the  manufactures  of  Florence  were  a  source  of 
great  profit  to  its  people.  "  Two  hundred  establishments, 
with  thirty  thousand  workmen,  were  employed  in  the  man- 


GREAT  BRITAIN'S  INDUSTRIAL  POLICY.  5 

ufacture  of  wool."  At  Bruges,  in  Flanders,  "  the  merchants 
of  seventeen  kingdoms  had  their  factories  and  domiciles,  be- 
side many  from  almost  unknown  lands  who  flocked,  within 
its  walls."  Bruges  was  a  great  manufacturing  and  commer- 
cial emporium.  "While  the  merchant  frequented  the  mart 
the  weaver  was  busy  at  his  loom,  in  the  production  of  silk 
and  linen  fabrics,  as  well  as  woolen  cloths." 

For  hundreds  of  years  after  the  revival  of  trade  and  com- 
merce on  the  Continent  of  Europe  which  followed  the  begin- 
ning of  the  Crusades  in  the  eleventh  century  England  pur- 
sued in  the  main  the  losing  policy  we  have  briefly  sketched. 
Strangers  manufactured  for  her,  acted  as  her  merchants  in 
her  large  cities,  and  filled  her  ports  with  their  ships.  Nei- 
ther her  commerce  nor  he'r  manufactures  flourished,  nor  did 
her  agriculture.  The  last  was  of  the  most  primitive  and 
wasteful  kind  and  was  far  surpassed  by  that  of  Italy  and  the 
Netherlands.  The  agriculture  of  these  countries  had  been 
greatly  benefited  by  the  attention  paid  to  commerce  and 
manufactures.  That  of  Italy  was  worthy  of  comparison  with 
the  best  results  of  the  nineteenth  century.  "  The  Nether- 
lands, too,  once  covered  with  swamps  and  forests,  became 
a  rich  agricultural  country ;  farms  and  gardens  surrounded 
the  manufactory  and  the  mart ;  and  the  wain  richly  laden 
with  the  treasures  of  merchandise,  as  it  slowly  traversed  the 
roads  of  Brabant,  passed  through  a  rich  country,  where  the 
mower  filled  his  hand  and  he  that  bound  sheaves  his  bo- 
som." But  in  England  "  the  tillage  of  fields  was  very  im- 
perfect, producing  extremely  scanty  crops ;  the  implements  of 
husbandry  were  rude ;  oxen  were  so  badly  fed  that  it  requir- 
ed six  of  them  to  draw  a  plow,  which  barely  turned  up  half 
an  acre  in  a  summer's  day.  .  .  As  there  was  so  little 


6  NOTES  AND  COMMENTS. 

inclosed  meadow  land,  as  the  cultivation  of  artificial  grasses 
and  turnips  was  unknown,  winter  provender  for  cattle  was 
very  scarce ;  hence  many  were  killed  before  they  were  fat." 
In  1563  a  royal  decree  was  issued  abolishing  the  "bloomer- 
ies,"  or  "iron  smithies,"  in  Furness  in  Lancashire,  in  com- 
pliance with  a  petition  of  the  inhabitants,  "  because  they  con- 
sumed all  the  loppings  and  croppings,  the  sole  winter  food  for 
their  cattle."  "Vegetables  were  scarce.  The  roots  that  now 
smoke  on  our  table,  cabbages,  carrots,  and  potatoes,  were  un- 
known in  England."  The  harvests  frequently  failed  and 
great  suffering  followed.  "As  late  as  1547  bullocks  bought 
for  the  navy  weighed  less  than  four  hundred  pounds."  The 
agriculture  of  England,  like  her  manufactures,  has  attained 
its  highest  development  in  the  eighteenth  and  nineteenth  cen- 
turies, but  it  is  not  to-day  as  prosperous  as  it  has  been. 

It  can  not  be  said  that  the  English  people  were  prosper- 
ous while  agriculture  was  almost  their  sole  occupation.  The 
masses  certainly  were  not.  In  the  thirteenth  and  fourteenth 
centuries  "the  purchase  of  a  pound  of  candles  would  have 
almost  absorbed  a  workman's  daily  wages.  Few  persons 
could  have  afforded  to  break  the  curfew."  Clothing  was  so 
dear  that  ordinary  linen  shirts  were  devised  by  will  from  one 
generation  to  another.  Even  among  the  upper  classes  "the 
cloak,  robe,  or  gown  of  the  day  was  often  the  coverlet  at 
night."  Glass  windows  were  practically  unknown  in  the  huts 
of  the  lower  classes.  "  The  sale  of  wool  and  woolfels  was 
the  chief  profit  of  the  farmer,"  so  little  did  he  diversify  his 
crops.  Among  the  masses  "the  pig  was  the  most  important 
article  of  diet,"  and  "  during  half  the  year  salted  meat  and 
hard  fish  formed  the  subsistence  of  the  greater  part  of  the 
community."  Iron  was  dear  and  nearly  all  of  it  was  import- 


GREAT  BRITAIN'S  INDUSTRIAL  POLICY.  I 

ed.  Metal  vessels  for  domestic  use  were  real  luxuries.  In 
the  thirteenth  and  fourteenth  centuries  iron  for  the  tires  of 
wagons  and  carts  was  so  dear  in  England  that  many  wheels 
were  not  ironed,  and  iron  teeth  for  English  harrows  were 
unknown.  Hallam  expresses  the  opinion  that  in  the  four- 
teenth century  the  middle  classes  of  Italy  were  much  more 
comfortable  than  those  of  France  or  England.  The  people 
of  the  Netherlands  also  at  that  period  possessed  more  of  the 
comforts  of  civilization  than  the  people  of  England.  In  the 
fifteenth  and  sixteenth  centuries  the  houses  of  the  working 
people  of  England  were  still  bare  of  simple  comforts  and 
conveniences.  "There  were  very  few  chimneys  even  in  cap- 
ital towns ;  the  fire  was  laid  to  the  wall,  and  the  smoke  is- 
sued out  at  the  roof  or  "door  or  window.  The  houses  were 
wattled  and  plastered  over  with  clay,  and  all  the  furniture 
and  utensils  were  of  wood.  The  people  slept  on  straw  pal- 
lets, with  a  log  of  wood  for  a  pillow."  In  the  sixteenth  cen- 
tury carpets  were  unknown  in  England,  and  the  floor  of  the 
royal  presence  chamber  of  Queen  Mary  and  Queen  Eliza- 
beth was  covered  with  rushes  or  hay. 

There  is  abundant  evidence  of  the  fact  that,  down  to  the 
sixteenth  century,  absorbing  devotion  to  agriculture,  with  cor- 
responding neglect  of  manufacturing  and  commercial  pursuits, 
improved  neither  the  agriculture  nor  the  people  of  England. 
In  the  five  hundred  years  from  1075  to  1575  the  population 
of  England  and  Wales  but  little  more  than  doubled.  We 
can  easily  imagine  what  would  be  the  condition  of  that  agri- 
culture and  of  that  people  to-day  if  the  policy  which  so  long 
made  England  the  industrial  follower  instead  of  the  industrial 
leader  of  nations  had  been  continued. 


CHAPTER  II. 

BRITISH    INDUSTRIES    DEVELOPED    BY   PROTECTION. 

RESTRICTIVE  legislation  concerning  the  exportation  of 
wool  and  the  importation  of  woolen  cloths  was  adopted  by 
England  early  in  the  reign  of  Edward  III.,  in  the  first  half 
of  the  fourteenth  century.  Sir  William  Blackstone  remarks 
of  the  legislation  in  the  reign  of  Edward :  "  Much  also  was 
done,  under  the  auspices  of  this  magnanimous  prince,  for  es- 
tablishing our  domestic  manufactures  by  prohibiting  the  ex- 
portation of  English  wool  and  the  importation  or  wear  of 
foreign  cloth  or  furs,  and  by  encouraging  clothworkers  from 
other  countries  to  settle  here."  From  Edward's  time  the 
protective  policy  is  clearly  marked  in  English  history,  al- 
though its  application  was  long  limited  to  the  crudest  indus- 
tries. Nor  was  it  persistently  adhered  to  by  some  of  Ed- 
ward's immediate  successors.  At  first  only  the  manufacture 
of  common  woolen  goods  was  made  the  subject  of  protective 
legislation ;  the  Continent  still  continued  without  restriction 
to  supply  fine  cloths,  tapestries,  silks,  linens,  laces,  cutlery, 
iron,  etc.,  for  many  years.  Nor  did  the  exportation  of  wool 
come  to  an  end ;  it  "  became  a  monopoly  of  the  king's  ex- 
chequer." 

In  the  fifteenth  and  sixteenth  centuries  the  legislation  of 
England  affecting  the  importation  of  foreign  goods  compet- 
ing with  those  of  domestic  manufacture,  or  retarding  domes- 
tic manufacturing  enterprise,  gradually  grew  more  and  more 
restrictive.  Under  Edward  IV.,  in  the  fifteenth  century,  the 


GREAT  BRITAIN'S  INDUSTRIA£  POLICY. 

importation  of  many  manufactured  articles  was  entirely  pro- 
hibited. When  Queen  Elizabeth  was  upon  the  throne,  dur- 
ing the  latter  part  of  the  sixteenth  century,  the  effect  of  this 
policy,  of  which  she  was  an  ardent  advocate,  was  seen  in  the 
steady  development  of  the  manufacturing  and  commercial 
interests  of  the  kingdom.  Then,  for  the  first  time,  England 
began  to  manifest  the  possession  of  those  wonderful  capabil- 
ities which  have  made  her  the  first  commercial  and  manu- 
facturing nation  of  modern  times. 

The  policy  of  Edward  III.,  which  gave  England  her  start 
in  many  important  branches  of  manufactures,  was  cotempo- 
raneous  with  the  settlement  in  the  country  of  some  Flemish 
weavers.  Others  of  their  countrymen  accepted  the  induce- 
ments to  immigration  which  were  offered  by  Edward,  and 
still  other  skilled  foreigners  followed  the  Flemish  workmen. 
In  time,  however,  the  large  number  of  foreign  artisans  who 
had  settled  in  England  excited  the  jealousy  of  native  man- 
ufacturers, and  in  the  early  part  of  the  sixteenth  century 
many  thousand  Belgians  were  expelled  from  the  country  by 
Henry  VIII.  A  few  years  after  the  expulsion  of  the  Bel- 
gians summary  measures  were  successfully  resorted  to  by 
Elizabeth  to  rid  England  of  the  ships  and  merchandise  of 
the  powerful  Hanseatic  League,  which  for  centuries  had  en- 
joyed Parliamentary  privileges  amounting  almost  to  a  mo- 
nopoly of  English  commerce.  Henry's  and  Elizabeth's  acts 
were  measures  of  the  most  radical  protection,  as  were  those 
previous  enactments  which  had  prohibited  the  importation  of 
foreign  goods.  English  statesmanship  and  philanthropy  first 
invited  foreign  merchants  and  skilled  workmen  to  cultivate 
intimate  relations  with  the  unskilled  people  of  England,  and 
then,  when  the  lessons  so  greatly  needed  had  been  freely  im- 


10  NQTES  AND   COMMENTS. 

parted,  they  were  informed  that  their  services  were  no  longer 
required  and  that  their  company  was  not  wanted. 

Elizabeth  was,  however,  in  one  respect  wiser  than  Henry. 
She  did  not  banish  from  England  skilled  workmen  of  for- 
eign birth  who  had  sought  her  shores.  She  encouraged  the 
immigration  of  Huguenot  refugees  which  had  commenced  a 
few  years  before  her  accession  to  the  throne,  and  partly  in 
consequence  of  this  encouragement  her  reign,  as  already  in- 
timated, was  a  prosperous  one  for  her  people.  The  Hugue- 
nots brought  over  from  France  the  knowledge  of  many  of  the 
mechanic  arts  of  which  England  had  previously  been  igno- 
rant. "  In  1560  a  pair  of  black  silk  stockings,  knit  in  Eng- 
land, was  presented  to  Queen  Elizabeth "  as  a  great  achieve- 
ment. In  the  closing  years  of  the  seventeenth  century,  af- 
ter the  revocation  of  the  edict  of  Nantes  in  1685,  the  acces- 
sion to  her  population  of  other  Huguenot  refugees  still  fur- 
ther added  to  the  manufacturing  skill  and  developed  the 
manufacturing  resources  of  England.  Soon  after  the  middle 
of  the  sixteenth  century  numerous  German  miners  and  smelt- 
ers were  induced  by  Elizabeth  to  settle  in  England,  Spe- 
cial privileges  were  granted  to  companies  of  English  mer- 
chants and  vessel  owners  during  the  reign  of  Elizabeth,  and 
this  policy  proved  to  be  a  most  efficient  means  of  affording 
encouragement  and  protection  to  the  manufacturing  as  well 
as  to  the  commercial  interests  of  England. 

The  protective  measures  we  have  recited  had  encouraged 
the  merchants  of  England  to  seek  foreign  markets  to  ex- 
change English  products  for  the  products  of  other  countries, 
and  at  the  close  of  the  sixteenth  century  and  the  beginning 
of  the  seventeenth  century  English  manufactures  had  obtain- 
ed an  entrance  into  the  world's  markets.  Employment  was 


GREAT  BRITAIN'S  INDUSTRIAL  POLICY.  11 

thus  found  for  English  shipbuilders  and  English  sailors,  as 
well  as  for  English  weavers  and  other  English  mechanics. 

Yet  England  needed  to  take  one  step  more  to  assure  the 
continued  growth  of  hep-  foreign  trade.  Most  of  this  trade 
was  still  conducted  in  foreign  vessels.  "  Even  the  produce 
of  the  British  colonies  was  brought  to  England  in  Dutch 
bottoms."  The  important  step  was  taken  in  the  passage  of 
the  navigation  acts  in  Cromwell's  time,  about  the  middle  of 
the  seventeenth  century.  Judge  William  D.  Kelley  says  of 
England's  navigation  acts  under  Cromwell :  "  She  legislated 
in  favor  of  her  own  ships.  The  foreign  article  brought  in 
English  bottoms  came  into  her  ports  under  differential  du- 
ties lower  than  those  on  the  same  article  coming  in  on  the 
same  day  in  foreign  bottoms.  She  thus  stimulated  the  build- 
ing of  English  ships  and  created  a  great  English  navy." 
The  importation  of  colonial  products  in  any  other  than  Eng- 
lish ships  was  prohibited.  The  navigation  acts  of  the  Crom- 
wellian  Protectorate  were  supplemented  by  others  of  similar 
character  in  the  reign  of  Charles  II.  and  afterwards. 

All  these  acts  were  measures  of  real  protection  to  English 
trade,  as  much  so  as  were  the  laws  previously  passed  to  en- 
courage home  manufactures  and  the  sale  of  their  products  in 
foreign  markets. 

The  navigation  acts  of  Great  Britain  were  greatly  modi- 
fied in  1849  and  in  subsequent  years.  Foreign  ships  were 
permitted  without  restriction  to  carry  foreign  merchandise  to 
British  ports  and  to  receive  return  cargoes.  Ships  not  of 
British  build  were  permitted  to  be  registered  as  British  ships 
and  bear  the  British  flag  if  wholly  owned  by  British  sub- 
jects. The  first  concession  was  made  to  aid  in  the  extension 
of  British  trade,  and  the  second  signified  nothing,  for  it  had 


12  NOTES  AND  COMMENTS. 

been  demonstrated  that  British-built  ships  were  as  cheap  as 
any  that  could  be  bought. 

Further  details  of  the  protection  afforded  by  acts  of  Par- 
liament to  English  industries  are  instructive.  As  one  result 
of  the  Huguenot  immigration  into  England  the  manufacture 
of  silk  was  greatly  extended.  "  To  cherish  the  industry  the 
duties  on  imported  silks  were  trebled  and  then  their  impor- 
tation prohibited."  In  1678  an  act  was  passed  for  the  en- 
couragement of  the  woolen  industry  which  required  that 
"  all  dead  bodies  should  be  wrapped  in  woolen  shrouds." 
This  act  remained  in  force  until  1808.  The  Irish  linen  man- 
ufacture was  established  through  liberal  grants  from  William 
of  Orange  ajid  succeeding  sovereigns.  The  fisheries  of  Scot- 
land were  built  up  by  government  bounties. 

Blackstone,  in  his  chapter  on  "  offenses  against  public 
trade,"  states  that  "owling,  .  .  the  offense  of  transport- 
ing wool  or  sheep  out  of  this  kingdom,  to  the  detriment  of 
its  staple  manufacture,  .  .  was  forbidden  at  common  law 
.  .  and  by  many  later  statutes.  The  statute  8  Elizabeth, 
c.  3,  makes  the  transportation  of  live  sheep,  or  embarking 
them  on  board  any  ship,  for  the  first  offense  forfeiture  of 
goods  and  imprisonment  for  a  year,  and  at  the  end  of  the 
year  the  left  hand  shall  be  cut  off  in  some  public  market, 
and  shall  be  there  nailed  up  in  the  openest  place ;  and  the 
second  offense  is  felony" — that  is,  death.  "The  statutes  12 
Charles  II.,  c.  3,  and  7  and  8  William  III.,  c.  28,  .  . 
make  the  exportation  of  wool,  sheep,  or  fuller's  earth  liable 
to  pecuniary  penalties,  and  the  forfeiture  of  the  interest  of 
the  ship  and  cargo  by  the  owners,  if  privy,  and  confiscation 
of  goods,  and  three  years'  imprisonment  to  the  master  and 
all  the  mariners;"  and  the  statutes  4  George  I.  and  12  and 


GREAT  BRITAIN'S  INDUSTRIAL  POLICY.  13 

19  George  II.  "make  it  transportation  for  seven  years  if  the 
penalties  be  not  paid."  These  prohibitions  of  the  exporta- 
tion of  wool,  sheep,  and  fuller's  clay  were  not  repealed  until 
the  present  century. 

The  same  distinguished  author,  in  the  same  chapter,  re- 
cords another  restriction  upon  the  freedom  of  trade  which 
was  enforced  during  the  eighteenth  century  and  repealed 
only  after  its  close :  "  To  prevent  the  destruction  of  our  home 
manufactures  by  transporting  and  seducing  our  artists  to  settle 
abroad  it  is  provided,  by  statute  5  George  I.,  c.  27,  that  such 
as  so  entice  or  seduce  them  shall  be  fined  £100  and  be  im- 
prisoned three  months ;  and  for  the  second  offense  shall  be 
fined  at  discretion  and  be  imprisoned  a  year ;  and  the  artifi- 
cers so  going  into  foreign  countries,  and  not  returning  within 
six  months  after  warning  given  them  by  the  British  ambas- 
sador where  they  reside,  shall  be  deemed  aliens  and  forfeit  all 
their  land  and  goods,  and  shall  be  incapable  of  any  legacy 
or  gift.  By  statute  23  George  II.,  c.  13,  the  seducers  incur, 
for  the  first  offense,  a  forfeiture  of  £500  for  each  artificer 
contracted  with  to  be  sent  abroad  and  imprisonment  for 
twelve  months ;  and  for  the  second,  £1,000,  and  are  liable  to 
two  years'  imprisonment ;  and,  by  the  same  statute,  connected 
with  14  George  III.,  c.  71,  if  any  person  exports  any  tools 
or  utensils  used  in  the  silk,  linen,  cotton,  or  woolen  manufac- 
tures, (excepting  wool  cards  to  North  America,)  he  forfeits  the 
same  and  £200,  and  the  captain  of  the  ship  (having  knowl- 
edge thereof)  £100 ;  and  if  any  captain  of  a  king's  ship,  or 
officer  of  the  customs,  knowingly  suffers  such  exportation  he 
forfeits  £100  and  his  employment,  and  is  forever  made  inca- 
pable of  bearing  any  public  office ;  and  every  person  collect- 
ing such  tools  or  utensils  in  order  to  export  the  same  shall, 


14  NOTES  AND  COMMENTS. 

on  conviction  at  the  assizes,  forfeit  such  tools  and  also  £200." 
In  1825  and  again  in  1833  the  exportation  of  machinery  for 
the  manufacture  of  cotton,  woolen,  linen,  and  silk  goods  was 
again  prohibited.  It  was  not  permitted  to  be  exported  until 
1845. 

Near  the  close  of  the  seventeenth  century,  in  the  reign  of 
William  III.,  the  exportation  of  frames  or  engines  for  knit- 
ting gloves  or  stockings  was  prohibited  under  heavy  penal- 
ties. A  hundred  years  later,  in  1782,  "a  special  act  was 
passed,  prohibiting  the  exportation  of  engraved  copper-plates 
and  blocks,  or  enticing  any  workmen  employed  in  printing 
calicoes  to  go  beyond  the  sea,  under  the  penalty  of  £500 
and  twelve  months'  imprisonment."  The  statutes  prohibit- 
ing artificers  from  going  abroad  were  not  finally  repealed 
until  1825. 

The  acts  of  Parliament  above  recited  were  of  general  and 
universal  application,  and,  in  the  language  of  Sir  William 
Blackstone,  already  quoted,  were  intended  "to  prevent  the 
destruction  of  our  home  manufactures" — more  properly  to 
promote  their  development  and  growth.  The  restrictions 
which  the  mother  country  saw  fit  to  impose  on  her  North 
American  colonies  were,  however,  equally  as  severe  as  those 
general  prohibitions  and  penalties  which  have  been  quoted. 
Dr.  William  Elder  states  the  character  of  these  restrictions 
as  follows :  "  The  colonies  were  held  under  restraint  so  abso- 
lute that,  beyond  the  common  domestic  industries,  and  the 
most  ordinary  mechanical  employments,  no  kind  of  manu- 
factures was  permitted.  In  1750  a  hatter-shop  in  Massachu- 
setts was  declared  a  nuisance  by  the  British  Parliament.  In 
the  same  year  an  act  was  passed  permitting  the  importation 
of  pig  iron  from  the  colonies,  because  charcoal,  then  exclu- 


GREAT  BRITAIN'S  INDUSTRIAL  POLICY.  15 

sively  employed  in  smelting  the  ore,  was  well-nigh  exhaust- 
ed in  England  ;  but  forbidding  the  erection  of  tilt-hammers, 
slitting  or  rolling  mills,  or  any  establishment  for  the  manu- 
facture of  steel."  A  law  of  Virginia,  passed  in  1684,  to  en- 
courage textile  manufactures  in  that  province,  was  annulled 
in  England.  Lord  Chatham  declared  that  "the  British  col- 
onists of  North  America  had  no  right  to  manufacture  even 
a  nail  for  a  horseshoe."  From  1719  to  1732  British  mer- 
chants "  complained  in  memorials  to  the  government  that 
the  people  of  Massachusetts,  New  York,  Connecticut,  Rhode 
Island,  and  Maryland  were  setting  up  manufactures  of  wool- 
en and  linen  for  the  use  of  their  own  families,  and  of  flax 
and  hemp  for  coarse  bags  and  halters."  McCulloch,  in  his 
Commercial  Dictionary,  declares  that  "  it  was  also  a  leading 
principle  in  the  system  of  colonial  policy,  adopted  as  well 
by  England  as  by  the  other  European  nations,  to  discourage 
all  attempts  to  manufacture  such  articles  in  the  colonies  as 
could  be  provided  for  them  by  the  mother  country." 

The  act  of  Parliament  concerning  the  manufacture  of  iron 
in  the  colonies,  above  alluded  to,  was  passed  in  the  twenty- 
third  year  of  the  reign  of  George  II.,  and  printed  in  pam- 
phlet form  in  1750  by  Thomas  Baskett,  of  London,  "Print- 
er to  the  King's  Most  Excellent  Majesty."  It  enacted  : 
"That  from  and  after  the  24th  day  of  June,  1750,  no  mill 
or  other  engine  for  slitting  or  rolling  of  iron,  or  any  plating 
forge  to  work  with  a  tilt-hammer,  or  any  furnace  for  mak- 
ing steel,  shall  be  erected,  or,  after  such  erection,  continued 
in  any  of  His  Majesty's  colonies  in  America ;  and  if  any 
person  or  persons  shall  erect,  or  cause  to  be  erected,  or,  af- 
ter such  erection,  continue,  or  cause  to  be  continued,  in  any 
of  the  said  colonies,  any  such  mill,  engine,  forge,  or  furnace, 


16  NOTES  AND  COMMENTS. 

every  person  or  persons  so  offending  shall,  for  every  such 
mill,  engine,  forge,  or  furnace,  forfeit  the  sum  of  two  hundred 
pounds  of  lawful  money  of  Great  Britain."  And  further  : 
"  That  every  such  mill,  engine,  forge,  or  furnace,  so  erected 
or  continued,  contrary  to  the  directions  of  this  act,  shall  be 
deemed  a  common  nuisance"  to  be  abated  by  "every  gov- 
ernor, lieutenant-governor,  or  commander-in-chief  of  any  of 
His  Majesty's  colonies  in  America,  where  any  such  mill,  en- 
gine, forge,  or  furnace  shall  be  erected  or  continued."  This 
act  was  enforced  down  to  the  beginning  of  the  Revolution. 

The  Declaration  of  American  Independence  recited,  among 
other  causes  of  complaint  against  the  home  government,  that 
it  had  cut  off  the  trade  of  the  colonies  "with  all  parts  of 
the  world."  How  it  did  this  is  illustrated  in  various  acts  of 
Parliament  which  we  shall  quote. 

By  the  navigation  act  of  1660  (12  Charles  II.)  it  was 
provided  "  that  certain  specified  articles,  the  produce  of  the 
colonies,  should  not  be  exported  directly  from  the  colonies 
to  any  foreign  country,  but  that  they  should  first  be  sent  to 
Britain  and  there  unladen  before  they  could  be  forwarded  to 
their  final  destination."  Sugar,  molasses,  tobacco,  hides,  iron, 
corn,  and  lumber  were  either  originally  or  ultimately  em- 
braced within  the  provisions  of  this  act,  the  plain  intention 
of  which  was  to  give  to  England  a  monopoly  of  the  pur- 
chase and  sale  of  all  colonial  products.  Robert  Ellis  Thomp- 
son states  that  "  in  1699  the  export  of  wool  and  woolens 
from  the  colonies  .  .  was  forbidden.  In  1731  an  inquiry 
of  the  Board  of  Trade  ascertained  that  the  colonies  were 
making  linens,  woolens,  iron  wares,  paper,  hats,  and  leather, 
and  even  exporting  hats.  The  carriage  of  these,  even  from 
one  plantation  or  colony  to  another,  was  forbidden." 


GREAT  BRITAIN'S  INDUSTRIAL  POLICY.  17 

McCulloch  says  that,  "besides  compelling  the  colonists  to 
sell  their  produce  exclusively  in  the  English  markets,  it  was 
next  thought  advisable  to  oblige  them  to  buy  such  foreign 
articles  as  they  might  stand  in  need  of  entirely  from  the 
merchants  and  manufacturers  of  England."  For  this  purpose 
it  was  enacted  in  1663  that  "  no  commodity  of  the  growth, 
production,  or  manufacture  of  Europe  shall  be  imported  in- 
to the  British  plantations  but  such  as  are  laden  and  put  on 
board  in  England,  Wales,  or  Berwick-upon-Tweed,  and  in 
English-built  shipping,  whereof  the  master  and  three-fourths 
of  the  crew  are  English." 

It  will  be  perceived  that  the  acts  of  Parliament  from 
which  we  have  quoted  were  intended  to  benefit  the  manu- 
factures of  England  by  e&stroying  those  of  the  colonies,  and 
that  they  also  aimed  to  secure  to  her  "the  absolute  monop- 
oly of  her  colonial  commerce."  These  acts  were  successful  in 
accomplishing  the  objects  sought,  but  they  formed  no  insig- 
nificant part  of  that  "  long  train  of  abuses  and  usurpations  " 
which  led  to  independence. 

In  his  great  work  on  The  Tariff  Question  Erastus  B. 
Bigelow  condenses  into  the  following  sentences  the  legislation 
of  Great  Britain  concerning  the  introduction  into  the  British 
Islands  of  cotton  fabrics  from  India,  which  once  threatened 
to  be  a  rival  of  British  woolen  products :  "  In  1678  strong  re- 
monstrances were  made  in  Parliament  against  the  admission 
of  Indian  calicoes,  chintzes,  and  muslins,  on  the  ground  that 
they  were  ruining  the  woolen  trade.  In  1700  an  act  was 
passed  prohibiting  the  importation  of  the  articles  just  named, 
under  a  penalty,  upon  the  seller  and  buyer,  of  £200.  In 
1720  another  concession  was  made  to  the  demands  of  the 
woolen  interest.  Under  the  act  of  this  year  no  person  could 


18  NOTES  AND   COMMENTS. 

wear  a  printed  calico  without  the  payment  of  £5  for  the  priv- 
ilege, while  the  seller  of  the  article  was  mulcted  to  the  extent 
of  £20.  Sixteen  years  later  the  act  of  1720  was  so  far  modi- 
fied as  to  legalize  the  use  of  mixed  prints,  while  the  prohibi- 
tion against  using  calicoes  made  wholly  of  cotton  remained 
in  full  force.  This  state  of  things  lasted  nearly  forty  years 
longer.  In  1774  Parliament  passed  an  act  sanctioning  the 
manufacture  of  cotton,  and  making  it  lawful  to  use  or  wear 
any  new  fabric  made  wholly  of  that  material." 

An  excise  duty  of  "three  pence  for  every  yard  in  length, 
reckoning  yard- wide,"  was,  however,  imposed  on  "the  said 
manufactured  stuffs  wholly  made  of  cotton  spun  in  Great 
Britain  when  printed."  This  duty,  like  the  act  of  1678,  re- 
quiring that  "all  dead  bodies  should  be  wrapped  in  woolen 
shrouds,"  was  for  the  benefit  of  the  British  woolen  industry. 
In  a  short  time  the  English  cotton  industry  itself  demand- 
ed and  received  protection  from  foreign  competition.  In  his 
Letters  to  the  London  Times  Henry  C.  Carey  states  that  the 
cotton  manufacture  was  transferred  from  India  to  Great 
Britain  by  prohibiting  "  the  export  not  only  of  machinery 
itself  but  of  all  the  artisans  by  whom  machines  might  possi- 
bly be  made.  To  this  was  added  the  imposition  of  heavy 
duties  on  the  import  of  Indian  cottons,  coupled  with  a  pro- 
hibition of  duties  of  any  kind  on  English  cottons  imported 
into  India." 

The  British  tariff  that  was  in  force  in  1787,  the  year  in 
which  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  was  framed, 
was  a  very  restrictive  measure.  The  word  "prohibited"  ap- 
pears in  it  opposite  to  many  leading  productions  of  other 
countries,  including  iron  in  hoops,  rods,  cast,  and  wrought ; 
steel,  brass,  and  copper  manufactures ;  manufactures  of  silk ; 


GREAT  BRITAIN'S  INDUSTRIAL  POLICY.  19 

boots  and  shoes;  gloves  of  leather;  leather  itself;  hats.  In 
the  same  year  paper  was  subject  to  a  duty  of  75  per  cent., 
and  cotton  manufactures,  except  from  within  the  limits  of  the 
East  India  Company's  charter,  to  a  duty  of  44  per  cent. 

A  favorite  method  of  encouraging  British  manufactures 
was  the  payment  of  government  bounties  on  exports.  For 
instance :  In  1819,  the  importation  of  silk  goods  being  still 
prohibited,  an  act  was  passed  to  grant  an  additional  bounty 
on  the  exportation  of  certain  silk  manufactures  of  Great  Brit- 
ain. In  1821  another  act  was  passed  to  grant  bounties  on 
the  exportation  of  certain  mixed  goods  of  silk  and  mohair 
and  mohair  and  worsted,  the  manufacture  of  Great  Britain. 
In  1820  an  act  was  passed  to  continue  an  act  granting  a 
bounty  on  certain  British" and  Irish  linens  and  reducing  du- 
ties on  imported  raw  linen  yarns.  A  bounty  on  the  exporta- 
tion of  British  wheat  was  paid  from  1689  to  1815. 

The  nature  of  the  protection  which  England  extended  to 
her  iron  industry  is  explained  by  Dr.  Elder  as  follows  : 
"  Iron  imported  in  foreign  vessels  was  charged,  as  early  as 
the  year  1710,  with  a  duty  of  £2  10s.  per  ton,  which  was 
raised  at  successive  periods,  till  in  1819  it  stood  at  £6  10s. 
in  English  and  £7  18s.  6d.  in  foreign  vessels.  This  was  ade- 
quate as  well  as  earnest  protection  of  the  domestic  manufac- 
ture, for  as  early  as  seven  years  after  the  last-mentioned  date 
England  was  actually  producing  her  own  iron  at  £3  13s. 
cheaper  than  the  cheapest  of  her  competitors  in  all  Europe. 
Being  thus  secure  against  all  rivalry  in  the  home  market  the 
duty  was  reduced  in  1834  to  £1  per  ton." 

The  iron  referred  to  by  Dr.  Elder  was  bar  iron.  In 
Scrivenor's  History  of  the  Iron  Trade  we  find  further  details 
of  the  protective  duties  which  were  imposed  by  Great  Brit- 


20  NOTES  AND  COMMENTS. 

ain  on  foreign  iron  and  steel.  "  Iron  slit,  or  hammered  into 
rods,  and  iron  drawn  down,  or  hammered,  less  than  three- 
quarters  of  an  inch  square,  was  made  to  pay  a  duty  at  the 
rate  of  £20  per  ton  ;  wrought  iron,  not  otherwise  enumerated, 
was  taxed  with  a  payment  of  £50  for  every  £100  worth 
imported  ;  and  steel,  or  manufactures  of  steel,  were  similarly 
loaded  with  a  fifty  per  cent,  duty." 

A  significant  feature  of  the  British  tariff  which  was  in 
force  in  1819  is  found  in  the  large  number  of  articles  which 
were  absolutely  prohibited  from  entering  British  ports,  or 
were  subjected  to  duties  of  one-half  their  value.  The  United 
States  has  never  prohibited  the  importation  of  any  useful 
commodity,  except  in  time  of  war  or  in  retaliation  for  the 
unfriendly  action  of  other  countries. 

An  English  writer,  Sir  Henry  Parnell,  in  his  work  on  Fi- 
nancial Reform,  gives  a  summary  of  a  Parliamentary  return 
issued  in  1829,  from  which  it  appears  that,  in  that  year, 
"protective  duties  were  imposed  upon  every  description  of 
manufacture,  of  which  the  following  are  examples :  30  per 
cent. — manufactures  of  brass,  copper,  lace,  leather,  silk,  em- 
broidery and  needle-work,  pencils,  pens,  sealing-wax,  hair  of 
goats,  wool,  pots  of  stone,  varnish ;  20  per  cent. — japanned 
ware,  wrought  iron,  manufactures  of  pewter,  steel,  and  tin 
jewellery,  baskets,  boxes,  buttons,  haberdashery  and  apparel, 
scientific  and  musical  instruments,  matting,  mattresses,  cotton 
and  woolen  manufactures ;  15  per  cent. — earthen  and  china 
ware,  some  woolen  manufactures,  tiles ;  40  per  cent. — linen 
manufactures ;  50  per  cent. — empty  casks ;  75  per  cent. — 
dressed  furs ;  25  per  cent. — watches ;  upon  many  other  arti- 
cles there  were  specific  duties,  and  upon  manufactures  not 
enumerated  the  rate  was  20  per  cent. 


GREAT  BRITAIN'S  INDUSTRIAL  POLICY.  21 

"  In  order  to  protect  agriculture  the  following  duties  were 
imposed :  Bacon,  28s.  per  cwt. ;  butter,  20s.  per  cwt. ;  cheese, 
10s.  6d.  per  cwt. ;  hay,  24s.  per  load;  hops,  £8  11s.  per  cwt.; 
hemp  seed,  £2  per  quarter ;  hemp,  undressed,  4s.  6d.  per  cwt. ; 
lard,  8s.  per  cwt. ;  mules  and  asses,  10s.  6d.  each ;  horses,  £1 
each  ;  rape  and  linseed  oil,  £39  18s.  per  ton  ;  peas,  7s.  6d. 
per  bushel ;  potatoes,  2s.  per  cwt. ;  seeds,  £1  ;  tallow,  3s.  2d. 
per  cwt. ;  tares,  10s.  per  quarter ;  timber,  £2  15s.  per  load ; 
wheat,  £1  5s.  a  quarter  to  Is.,  according  as  the  price  rose 
from  61s.  to  70s.  a  quarter;  barley,  13s.  lOd.  to  Is.,  accord- 
ing as  the  price  rose  from  32s.  to  40s.  a  quarter ;  oats,  10s. 
9d.  a  quarter  to  Is.,  according  as  the  price  rose  from  24s. 
to  31s.  a  quarter ;  other  grain,  flour,  and  meal  on  similar 
scales.  The  importation-yof  living  animals  for  food,  and  of 
beef,  lamb,  mutton,  and  pork,  was  absolutely  prohibited.  The 
lowest  rate  of  duty  on  sugar  was  24s.  per  cwt.,  with  higher 
duties  upon  sugar  from  other  sources  than  our  own  colonies ; 
tea  was  taxed  100  per  cent,  on  its  value ;  and  coffee  from  6d. 
to  Is.  3d.  per  pound,  according  to  the  place  of  its  origin." 

It  was  not  until  1842  that  the  British  Government  seri- 
ously began  to  abandon  protective  duties,  but  many  years 
elapsed  before  their  general  repeal  was  effected.  Down  to 

1859  protective  duties  were  still  retained  on  many  foreign 
commodities  entering  British  ports,  and  in  the  tariffs  of  1851 
and  1854  these  duties  were  very  prominent.     A  protective 
duty  on  silks,  boots  and  shoes,  and  gloves  continued  down  to 

1860  ;  on  timber  down  to  1866  ;  and  on  sugar  down  to  1874. 
Even  in  our  own  day  it  can  scarcely  be  said  that  all  pro- 
tective duties   have  disappeared  from  the  British  tariff",  for 
duties  on  beer  and  spirits,  which  benefit  English  brewers  and 
distillers,  are  still  imposed. 


22  NOTES  AND  COMMENTS. 

An  examination  of  the  British  tariffs  which  have  been  in 
force  in  this  century  will  well  reward  the  reader  who  has 
been  led  to  believe  that  Great  Britain  has  been  steadily  prac- 
ticing free  trade  with  all  the  world  from  a  "time  to  which 
the  memory  of  man  runneth  not  to  the  contrary."  Her  free 
trade  policy  dates  only  from  the  early  part  of  Queen  Vic- 
toria's long  reign,  but  this  policy  relates  only  to  the  with- 
drawal of  protective  duties. 

The  principle  of  protection  for  the  manufactures  of  Eng- 
land, Scotland,  and  Wales  is  still  apparent  in  the  dealings 
of  Great  Britain  with  her  present  colonies,  for  her  influence 
is  steadily  exerted,  under  various  pretexts,  as  it  was  with  her 
American  colonies  in  the  last  century,  to  prevent  them  from 
manufacturing  for  themselves.  It  is  also  apparent  in  the  pay- 
ment of  large  annual  subsidies  to  British  steamship  lines  at 
the  present  day,  which  subsidies  aid  greatly  in  the  extension 
of  British  trade  with  all  the  world.  We  may  remark  further 
that,  in  seeking  through  commercial  treaties  and  other  less 
reputable  instrumentalities  to  prevent  other  nations  from  de- 
veloping their  resources,  the  same  principle  of  protection  to 
her  own  industries  is  found  to  constitute  the  cornerstone  of 
all  the  diplomacy  of  the  British  nation. 


CHAPTER   III. 

THE    BRITISH   WORKINGMAN  UNDER  VICTORIA   AND   HER 
IMMEDIATE   PREDECESSORS. 

THE  celebration  in  June,  1897,  of  the  conclusion  of  six- 
ty years  of  Queen  Victoria's  reign  has  called  forth  many 
comments  upon  the  causes  of  the  prosperity  which  has  been 
so  prominent  a  feature  of  this  remarkable  period  in  English 
history.  Undoubtedly  the  leading  cause  of  this  prosperity  is 
to  be  found  in  the  extraordinary  extension  of  British  trade. 

A  writer  in  The  Forum  for  July,  1897,  Professor  Thomas 
Davidson,  who  was  born  a  British  subject,  says  that,  coinci- 
dently  with  the  accession  of  Victoria  to  the  throne  in  1837, 
there  "  was  an  outburst  of  productive  and  commercial  enter- 
prise and  an  extension  of  the  field  of  commerce  such  as  had 
never  before  been  witnessed.  The  British  were  soon  the  first 
industrial  and  trading  people  of  the  world."  Professor  Da- 
vidson does  not  say  that  this  industrial  pre-eminence  had 
been  secured  by  the  steady,  persistent,  cruel,  and  remorseless 
warfare  of  British  manufacturers,  aided  by  British  diplomacy, 
for  the  control  of  foreign  markets,  but  he  comes  very  near  to 
telling  the  whole  truth  in  the  following  sentences :  "  It  has 
been  mainly  through  the  efforts  of  British  merchants  to  extend 
their  markets  that  the  British  nation  in  the  last  sixty  years 
has  come  to  extend  its  territory.  Markets  those  merchants  were 
determined  to  have  everywhere.  Among  people  ready  for  them 
they  at  once  established  them  :  peoples  not  ready  they  under- 
took to  make  ready  or  else  to  replace." 


24  NOTES  AND   COMMENTS. 

Not  satisfied  with  the  control  of  their  own  markets  Brit- 
ish manufacturers  have  sought  to  supply  the  world's  markets 
by  means  which  a  British  Parliamentary  commission  describ- 
ed in  1854  as  follows  :  "  The  laboring  classes  generally  in  the 
manufacturing  districts  of  this  country,  and  especially  in  the 
iron  and  coal  districts,  are  very  little  aware  of  the  extent  to 
which  they  are  often  indebted  for  their  being  employed  at 
all  to  the  immense  losses  which  their  employers  voluntarily 
incur  in  bad  times  in  order  to  destroy  foreign  competition  and 
to  gain  and  keep  possession  of  foreign  markets.  .  .  The  large 
capitals  of  this  country  are  the  great  instruments  of  warfare 
against  the  competing  capital  of  foreign  countries."  The  Chi- 
nese opium  war  in  the  early  part  of  the  reign  of  Queen  Vic- 
toria, which  compelled  the  Chinese  to  legalize  the  trade  in 
British  opium,  was  something  else  than  a  war  of  capital.  It 
was  real  and  bloody  war.  No  other  nation  of  modern  times 
— neither  Germany,  nor  France,  nor  the  United  States,  has 
sought  to  force  its  manufactured  products  upon  other  coun- 
tries or  to  prevent  those  countries  from  manufacturing  for 
themselves. 

The  writer  in  The  Forum  does  not  consider  the  effect  up- 
on her  own  people  of  the  industrial  warfare  which  Great 
Britain  has  waged  against  other  nations,  at  first  with  the  aid 
of  the  most  stringent  protective  tariff  legislation  the  world 
has  ever  known  and  afterwards  through  a  free  trade  policy 
dating  from  1846.  Has  this  warfare  resulted  in  elevating 
the  men  whose  sweat  has  most  promoted  it  ?  We  know  that 
through  it  the  ruling  classes  of  Great  Britain  have  prosper- 
ed, but  how  have  the  masses  been  fed  and  clothed,  and  in 
what  kind  of  homes  have  they  lived  and  died  ?  What  have 
been  their  opportunities  for  rising  in  the  world,  or  even  for 


GREAT  BRITAIN'S  INDUSTRIAL  POLICY.  25 

the  enjoyment  of  an  old  age  of  peace  and  comfort?  The 
policy  of  Great  Britain  which  has  sought  to  crush  the  manu- 
factures of  other  nations  has  not  produced  the  highest  moral, 
social,  and  intellectual  development  of  which  her  working 
people  are  capable.  Great  Britain  has  subordinated  the  best 
interests  of  her  toiling  masses  and  the  highest  capabilities  of 
the  nation  to  her  unworthy  greed  of  present  gain.  The  proofs 
of  this  assertion  are  only  too  abundant,  and  they  are  mainly 
furnished  by  British  witnesses. 

The  London  Fortnightly  Review  stated  in  1875  that  "for 
more  than  four  hundred  years"  after  the  dawn  of  civiliza- 
tion in  Europe,  namely,  from  the  fourteenth  century  down 
to  the  beginning  of  the  nineteenth  century,  it  was  the  "set- 
tled policy  "  of  British  legislators  that  it  was  "  a  crime  for  a 
workman  to  seek  higher  wages.  .  .  So  late  as  1720  an  act 
was  passed  to  keep  down  the  wages  of  the  tailors  of  London 
and  Westminster.  Any  master  who  gave  more  than  was  al- 
lowed by  the  act  was  liable  to  a  fine  of  £5 ;  every  workman 
who  asked  more  was  to  be  imprisoned  for  two  months." 
Down  to  1799  restrictions  upon  the  liberty  of  "the  masters" 
to  raise  wages  voluntarily  were  retained  in  British  laws,  and 
down  to  1824  it  was  a  punishable  offense  at  common  law  as 
well  as  by  statute  in  England  and  Scotland  for  mechanics 
to  form  societies  for  the  purpose  of  peacefully  endeavoring 
to  raise  their  wages.  In  1762  the  court  at  Edinburgh  found 
"that  the  defenders  and  other  journeymen  tailors  of  Edin- 
burgh are  not  entitled  to  an  hour  of  recess  for  breakfast, 
that  the  wages  of  a  journeyman  tailor  in  the  said  city  ought 
not  to  exceed  one  shilling  per  day,  and  that  if  any  journey- 
man tailor  not  retained  or  employed  shall  refuse  to  work 
when  requested  by  a  master  on  the  aforesaid  terms,  unless  for 


26  NOTES  AND  COMMENTS. 

some  sufficient  cause  to  be  allowed  by  the  magistrates,  the 
offender  shall,  upon  conviction,  be  punished  in  terms  of  law." 
It  was  not  until  1871  that  trade-unions  were  legalized  in 
Great  Britain.  It  must  be  remembered  that  these  organiza- 
tions owe  their  origin  to  the  oppression  of  labor,  and  that,  but 
for  them,  the  British  workingman  would  to-day  be  more  of  a 
slave  and  less  of  a  freeman  than  he  is. 

Other  facts  may  be  cited  to  prove  that  it  has  always  been 
the  spirit  of  the  British  laws  to  hedge  about  with  difficulties 
the  efforts  of  the  British  laborer  to  better  his  condition.  In 
the  fourteenth  century,  when  agriculture  was  regarded  with 
more  favor  than  manufactures,  legislation  was  employed  to 
prevent  the  sons  of  agricultural  laborers  from  learning  trades. 
We  have  shown  that  laws  prohibiting  skilled  workmen  from 
going  abroad  were  rigidly  enforced  in  the  eighteenth  century 
and  in  the  early  part  of  the  nineteenth  century. 

The  following  remarkable  statement  we  take  from  a  paper 
upon  the  industries  of  Scotland,  contained  in  the  Report  of 
the  Secretary  of  State  of  the  United  States  for  1868  upon 
our  Foreign  Relations.  "The  lot  of  the  early  miners  and 
coal-bearers  in  Scotland  was  rendered  hard  enough  by  their 
having  to  work  in  the  face  of  many  dangers  and  difficulties, 
to  the  removal  of  which  science  had  not  then  been  applied, 
but  their  condition  was  made  more  wretched  by  a  system  of 
bondage  or  serfdom.  On  entering  a  coal  mine  the  workers 
became  bound  to  labor  therein  during  their  whole  lifetime ; 
and  in  the  case  of  sale  or  alienation  of  the  ground  on  which 
a  colliery  was  situated  the  right  to  their  services  passed  to 
the  purchaser  without  any  special  grant  or  agreement.  The 
sons  of  the  collier  could  not  follow  any  occupation  save  that 
of  their  father,  and  could  labor  only  in  the  mine  to  which 


GREAT  BRITAIN'S  INDUSTRIAL  POLICY.  27 

they  were  held  to  be  attached  by  birth.  Tramps  and  vaga- 
bonds, who  were  not  sufficiently  wicked  to  deserve  hanging, 
and  on  whom  prison  accommodations  would  only  be  wasted, 
were  sometimes  consigned  by  the  lords  of  justiciary  to  life- 
long service  in  the  collieries  and  salteries.  Every  man  thus 
disposed  of  had  riveted  on  his  neck  a  collar,  on  which  was 
engraved  the  name  of  the  person  to  whom  he  was  gifted, 
together  with  the  date.  The  collar  was  intended  as  a  check 
upon  deserters ;  and  constables  were  highly  rewarded  when 
they  brought  back  a  fugitive.  A  collar  of  the  kind  refer- 
red to  may  be  seen  in  the  Edinburgh  Antiquarian  Museum. 
Though  serfdom  had  a  considerable  time  previously  died  out, 
so  far  as  all  other  classes  of  workers  were  concerned,  colliers 
and  salters  were  not  liberated  until  towards  the  close  of  the 
last  century ;  and  the  custom  of  celebrating  the  anniversary 
of  their  emancipation  has  not  yet  died  out.  The  act  which 
set  them  free  was  passed  on  the  23d  of  May,  1775." 

In  his  Work  and  Wages  Mr.  Thomas  Brassey,  a  loyal  Eng- 
lishman, remarks  :  "  So  long  as  the  cost  of  production  in  this 
country  exceeds  the  cost  of  production  in  other  countries  the 
neutral  markets  of  the  world  will  no  longer  draw  their  sup- 
plies from  England.  The  demand  for  labor  here  will  ac- 
cordingly diminish  ;  the  multitudes  of  people  out  of  employ 
will  be  driven,  under  the  pressure  of  necessity,  to  compete 
against  each  other  for  employment ;  wages  will  then  be  in 
proportion  diminished  until  we  are  once  more  in  a  position 
to  compete."  Mr.  Brassey  also  says :  "  It  is  solely  by  our 
lower  prices  that  we  have  secured  the  monopoly  of  the  Syri- 
an market."  Labor  being  the  principal  element  in  the  cost 
of  most  of  the  commodities  which  Great  Britain  sells  abroad 
the  plain  inference  from  these  extracts  is  that  British  work- 


28  NOTES  AND  COMMENTS. 

ingmen  must  be  systematically  underpaid  and  degraded  that 
the  condition  of  cheapness  may  be  secured. 

In  a  speech  in  Parliament  on  the  budget  in  1866  Mr. 
Gladstone  declared  that  "during  the  last  twenty-five  years" 
British  commerce  "  had  trebled,  mainly  in  consequence  of  our 
mineral  treasures.  It  was  important  to  bear  in  mind  that 
it  was  not  the  quantity  of  our  coal  but  its  production  at  a 
low  price  that  had  given  us  the  start."  In  an  address  before 
the  Social  Science  Congress  at  Liverpool  in  1876  Mr.  Shaw- 
Lefevre  said :  "  With  cheap  coal,  with  abundant  capital,  with 
reduced  wages,  I  see  no  reason  to  fear  for  the  future,  and  no 
grave  apprehension  for  foreign  competition." 

In  its  issue  for  the  25th  of  March,  1876,  Ryland's  Iron 
Trade  Circular,  published  at  Birmingham,  stated  that  the 
British  people  were  "gradually  coming  to  a  more  reasonable 
range  of  prices,  through  concessions  which  have  been  wrung 
from  ironworkers  and  colliers."  That  one  word  "  wrung  " 
gives  the  key  to  the  whole  labor  problem  of  Great  Britain. 
The  same  paper  on  the  6th  of  May  of  the  same  year,  allud- 
ing to  labor  troubles  in  the  British  iron  trade,  told  its  read- 
ers that  "the  result  will  be  either  no  work  at  all  or  submit 
to  the  inevitable." 

In  his  Sophisms  of  Free  Trade,  first  printed  in  1849,  Sir 
John  Barnard  Byles,  an  eminent  Englishman,  thus  states  the 
inevitable  tendency  of  all  efforts  to  undersell  other  nations 
in  their  own  markets :  "  In  the  fierce  struggle  of  universal 
competition  those  whom  the  climate  enables  or  misery  forces  or 
slavery  compels  to  live  worst  and  produce  cheapest  will  necessa- 
rily beat  out  of  the  market  and  starve  those  whose  wages  are 
better.  It  is  a  struggle  between  the  working  classes  of  all 
nations  which  shall  descend  first  and  nearest  to  the  condition 


GREAT  BRITAIN'S  INDUSTRIAL  POLICY.  29 

of  the  brutes."  The  challenge  to  all  the  world  to  produce 
the  cheapest  goods  may  also  cause  a  terrible  struggle  to  pre- 
serve even  the  home  market.  The  Spitalfields  silk  weaver  told 
Mr.  Mayhew :  "  We've  driven  the  French  out  of  the  market 
in  umbrellas  and  parasols,  but  the  people  are  starving  while 
they're  driving  of  'em  out." 

Joseph  Kay,  an  authorized  representative  of  the  Univer- 
sity of  Cambridge,  England,  deals  exhaustively  with  the  sad 
condition  of  British  workingmen  in  a  work  published  in 
London  in  1850,  entitled  Social  Condition  of  the  People  of 
England  and  Europe.  In  this  work  he  says :  "  The  poor  of 
England  are  more  depressed,  more  pauperized,  more  numer- 
ous in  comparison  to  the  other  classes,  more  irreligious,  and 
very  much  worse  educatect  than  the  poor  of  any  other  Eu- 
ropean nation,  solely  excepting  Russia,  Turkey,  South  Italy, 
Portugal,  and  Spain.  .  .  In  England  and  Wales  more 
than  half  the  poor  can  not  read  and  write,  while  the  major- 
ity of  the  remainder  know  .  .  very  little  of  the  Scripture 
history.  .  .  Throughout  the  greater  part  of  Western  Eu- 
rope and  North  America  there  is  free  trade  in  land,  and  the 
peasants  can  always,  by  exercising  industry,  self-denial,  and 
prudence,  make  themselves  proprietors  ;  in  England  and 
Wales  it  is  impossible  for  a  peasant  to  purchase  a  piece  of 
land."  Queen  Victoria  had  been  thirteen  years  on  the  throne 
when  Mr.  Kay's  book  appeared. 

Judge  Byles  confirms  what  Mr.  Kay  says  of  the  inability 
of  the  poor  man  in  England  and  Wales  to  obtain  a  piece  of 
land.  "Yeomen  living  on  their  own  small  properties  were 
formerly  the  principal  cultivators  in  England  and  Wales. 
With  no  outgoing  for  rent,  and  none  for  wages,  .  .  the 
well-grown,  robust,  and  ruddy  English  yeoman  was  the  most 


30  NOTES  AND   COMMENTS. 

independent  of  mankind.  Such  was  the  English  subject  of 
Charles  the  First.  .  .  Unhappily  the  race  is  now  almost 
extinct :  large  estates  and  large  farms  have  absorbed  them." 
The  yeomen  described  by  the  learned  judge  have  become 
"  almost  extinct "  because  the  British  Government  has  long 
maintained  a  system  of  land  tenure  which  could  have  no 
other  result  than  to  enable  the  rich  lord  to  crush  out  the 
small  land  owner. 

Mr.  Kay  says :  "  The  word  cottage  has  ceased  to  mean 
what  it  once  meant — a  small  house  surrounded  by  its  little 
plot  of  ground,  which  the  inmate  might  cultivate  as  he 
pleased,  for  the  support  and  gratification  of  his  family  and 
himself."  It  has  never  been  the  policy  of  the  British  Gov- 
ernment to  assist  its  poorer  subjects  to  obtain  homes  for 
themselves.  It  now  favors  free  trade  in  foreign  products 
which  compete  with  the  labor  of  these  poorer  subjects,  but 
free  trade  in  land  has  ceased  to  be  even  a  dream  :  as  the 
British  Government  is  now  constituted  it  is  an  impossibility. 
In  1844  the  London  Times  declared  that  "once  a  peasant  in 
England  and  the  man  must  remain  a  peasant  forever." 

The  Modern  Doomsday  Book  showed  a  quarter  of  a  cen- 
tury ago  that  12,000  persons  own  thirty  of  the  thirty-seven 
million  acres  of  land  in  England  and  Wales.  About  twenty 
persons  own  the  half  of  all  Scotland.  Seventeen  persons  in 
England  and  Wales  own  more  than  50,000  acres  each,  and 
three  of  these  own  over  100,000  acres  each.  Seven  hundred 
a,nd  twenty-nine  Englishmen  are  said  by  another  authority 
to  own  half  the  land  in  Ireland. 

A  writer  in  Harper's  Magazine  for  August,  1874,  remarks 
that  "the  most  obtrusive  fact  in  the  English  social  system 
is  the  contrast  which  exists  between  the  enormous  wealth  of 


GREAT  BRITAIN'S  INDUSTRIAL  POLICY.  31 

the  few  and  the  desperate  and  hopeless  poverty  of  the  many." 
Lord  Napier  bore  similar  testimony  in  an  address  delivered 
scarcely  a  generation  ago  in  London.  "  The  proportion  of 
those  who  possess  to  those  who  possess  nothing  is  probably 
smaller  in  some  parts  of  England  at  this  moment  than  it 
ever  was  in  any  settled  community,  except  in  some  of  the 
republics  of  antiquity,  where  the  business  of  mechanical  in- 
dustry was  delegated  to  slaves." 

In  the  London  Contemporary  Review  for  March,  1876,  the 
Duke  of  Argyll  says :  "  As  regards  the  number  of  those  who 
live  by  the  possession  of  small  agricultural  properties  it  is 
probably  true  that  the  number  rather  tends  to  diminish  than 
to  increase."  In  the  London  Fortnightly  Review  for  January, 
1876,  Mr.  F.  Barham  Zincke  says :  "  There  are  many  par- 
ishes in  which  not  a  man  resident  in  the  parish  owns  a 
rood  of  land  in  it  or  even  the  house  in  which  he  lives.  .  . 
Everybody  notices  the  poverty  and  meanness  of  social  life  in 
our  country  towns.  .  .  We  can  have  no  good  general  mar- 
kets in  our  towns,  large  as  they  are,  because  the  peasant  pro- 
prietors of  the  neighborhood  have  been  extinguished.  To  find 
these  natural  producers  of  vegetables,  fruit,  poultry,  eggs,  and 
butter  we  must  now  go  beyond  the  sea." 

If  land  were  free  in  England,  Scotland,  Wales,  and  Ire- 
land, so  that  a  part  of  the  population  that  is  now  depend- 
ent upon  mills  and  factories  could  be  supported  by  the  soil 
which  the  aristocracy  withholds  from  cultivation  because  it 
is  required  for  their  pleasure,  and  if  British  manufacturers 
did  not  greedily  aim  to  undersell  other  nations  in  their  own 
markets,  but  were  content  to  supply  them  only  with  those 
products  which  they  do  not  themselves  manufacture,  it  would 
not  be  necessary  to  beat  down  the  wages  of  the  British  work- 


32  NOTES  AND   COMMENTS. 

ingman.  It  is  because  the  British  workingman  is  compelled 
to  become  a  factory  or  a  mill  hand,  or  a  collier,  in  competi- 
tion with  all  the  world,  that  he  is  so  hardly  dealt  with.  If 
the  way  were  open  for  him  to  become  a  small  farmer,  or  if 
the  owner  of  the  factory  or  mill  or  colliery  were  not  led  to 
reduce  wages  to  the  lowest  possible  limit  of  human  endur- 
ance that  he  might  control  foreign  markets,  the  condition  of 
the  British  workingman  would  be  one  which  all  the  world 
might  envy,  and  England  would  be  "  Merrie  England "  in 
reality  to  all  her  people. 

The  vital  principle  of  all  trade  monopoly  is  the  subjuga- 
tion of  labor.  Education,  religion,  the  comforts  of  home,  hu- 
manity itself,  it  does  not  recognize.  These  are  matters  of 
sentiment  only  to  the  manufacturer  who  is  wholly  intent  on 
seizing  his  neighbor's  trade,  and  sentiment  is  not  business. 
Mr.  Huskisson  told  the  British  House  of  Commons,  in  his 
speech  on  the  28th  of  April,  1825 :  "If  capital  had  not  a  fair 
remuneration  here  it  would  seek  for  it  in  America.  To  give 
it  a  fair  remuneration  the  price  of  labor  must  be  kept  down." 
The  acts  of  the  British  Parliament  for  the  protection  of  chil- 
dren and  for  shortening  the  hours  of  labor  met  with  very 
great  opposition  from  the  masters.  The  British  workingman 
drinks  because  British  statesmen  and  manufacturers  offer  to 
him  the  public  house  as  something  better  than  his  cheerless 
home.  The  latter  do  not  as  a  rule  pay  him  sufficient  wages 
to  enable  him  to  rent,  much  less  to  buy,  a  comfortable  house. 
They  never  have  done  this  except  when,  through  the  operation 
of  trade-unions  or  because  of  a  sudden  demand  for  manufac- 
tured products,  they  could  not  help  themselves. 

Professor  Huxley,  the  British  scientist,  once  wrote  :  "A 
population  whose  labor  is  insufficiently  remunerated  must  be- 


GREAT  BRITAIN'S  INDUSTRIAL  POLICY.  33 

come  physically  and  morally  unhealthy  and  socially  unsta- 
ble, and,  though  it  may  succeed  for  awhile  in  industrial  com- 
petition by  reason  of  the  cheapness  of  its  produce,  it  must 
in  the  end  fall  through  hideous  misery  and  degradation  to 
utter  ruin." 

John  Bright  once  declared  that  there  are  one  million  per- 
sons who  are  paupers  on  the  parish  in  England,  and  that 
"  another  million  are  perpetually  lingering  on  the  very  verge 
of  pauperism."  Sir  S.  Morton  Peto,  in  his  treatise  on  Taxa- 
tion, published  in  1863,  page  242,  says:  "It  is  an  awful  con- 
sideration that  in  England,  abounding  as  it  does  with  wealth 
and  prosperity,  there  are  nearly  a  million  of  human  beings 
receiving  indoor  and  outdoor  relief  as  paupers  in  the  differ- 
ent unions,  besides  the  still  greater  number  dependent  upon 
the  hand  of  charity.  As  the  population  of  England  and 
Wales,  by  the  last  census,  was  20,205,504  it  follows  that 
nearly  one-twentieth  part  of  our  people  are  subsisting  upon 
charity ! "  Other  and  later  authorities  place  the  number  of 
actual  paupers  in  Great  Britain  at  much  higher  figures. 

That  British  workingmen  are  capable  of  the  highest  in- 
tellectual, moral,  and  social  development  is  shown  in  the  ca- 
reer of  a  large  majority  of  those  Englishmen,  Scotchmen, 
Welshmen,  and  Irishmen  who  have  escaped  from  the  shores 
of  their  native  country  to  become  citizens  of  Australia,  New 
Zealand,  Van  Diemen's  Land,  South  Africa,  Canada,  and  the 
United  States. 


CHAPTER   IV. 

THE    HOPELESS   POOE   OF   GREAT   BRITAIN. 

UNLIKE  the  England  of  song  and  story  the  England  of 
Queen  Victoria's  time  is  not  merry  with  the  daily  life  of 
a  contented  and  comfortable  and  well-paid  working  people. 
Numerous  English  authorities  of  undoubted  credit  may  be 
quoted  to  prove  this  fact. 

Mr.  John  Noble,  an  English  economic  writer,  testifies  as 
follows :  "  In  1848  the  great  bulk  of  the  people  had  ceased 
to  know  anything  of  butcher's  meat  except  as  an  occasional 
Sunday  luxury."  Professor  J.  E.  Thorold  Rogers,  an  eminent 
English  writer,  said  about  1870  that  "the  cost  of  living  in 
country  districts  has  doubled  within  the  last  thirty  years," 
and  that  "  some  articles  of  food,  once  within  the  reach  of  all, 
are  now  practically  unattainable  by  country  people."  In  1869 
Sir  Edward  Sullivan,  of  Lancashire,  England,  declared  that 
the  operatives  in  the  manufacturing  districts  were  not  pros- 
perous. "It  is  a  mockery  to  tell  them  to  thank  God  for  a 
full  stomach  when  they  are  empty !  They  are  not  well  off ; 
never  has  starvation,  pauperism,  crime,  discontent,  been  so 
plentiful  in  the  manufacturing  districts." 

Concerning  the  condition  of  the  laboring  classes  of  Scot- 
land an  extract  from  the  report  of  the  city  chamberlain  of 
Glasgow  for  1869  is  suggestive  of  far  more  than  is  said. 
"By  the  census  of  1861  more  than  28,000  houses  in  Glas- 
gow were  found  to  consist  of  but  a  single  apartment  each, 
and  above  32,000  of  but  two,  so  that,  of  the  whole  82,000 


GREAT  BRITAIN'S  INDUSTRIAL  POLICY.  35 

families  comprising  the  city,  upward  of  60,000  were  housed 
in  dwellings  of  one  and  two  apartments  each."  Edward 
Young,  an  officer  of  the  United  States  Government,  visited 
Scotland  in  1869,  and  upon  his  return  he  wrote  and  pub- 
lished in  the  New  York  Independent  the  following :  "  Hav- 
ing been  taught  to  believe  that  in  respect  to  education  and 
morals  the  people  of  Scotland  were  far  in  advance  of  those 
of  most  other  countries  it  was  with  profound  disappointment 
and  heartfelt  regret  that  I  witnessed  the  painful  evidences  of 
ignorance  and  intemperance  among  the  working  classes  of 
Glasgow." 

There  is  a  class  of  working  people  in  Great  Britain  who 
should  above  all  others  be.  well  fed  and  comfortably  housed, 
for  there  is  no  good  reason  why  they  should  not  be,  name- 
ly, the  agricultural  laborers.  But  they  are  miserably  poor. 
A  Parliamentary  commission  about  the  close  of  the  third 
quarter  of  the  nineteenth  century,  appointed  to  inquire  into 
the  condition  of  the  agricultural  laborers,  reported  that  "in 
Dorsetshire  vegetables  flavored  with  bacon  fat,  or  bread  and 
cheese  ;  in  Somersetshire  brown  bread  dipped  in  cider ;  in 
Cheshire  potatoes,  or  gruel  thickened  with  treacle,  are  the 
commonest  articles  of  food."  An  American,  writing  from 
London  in  1875,  says:  "To  the  modern  British  rustic  plenty 
of  any  kind  is  unknown  for  at  least  four-fifths  of  the  year. 
At  harvest-time,  perhaps,  he  can  eat  and  drink  his  fill,  but 
for  the  rest  of  the  year  his  life  is  spent  in  a  daily  fight 
against  the  grim  giant  of  starvation.  His  food  consists  of 
bread  without  butter,  potatoes,  milk,  bacon  once  or  twice  a 
week,  and  at  rare  intervals  a  piece  of  beef  or  mutton,  and 
these  only  in  quantities  barely  sufficient  to  sustain  life.  In 
the  winter  time,  when  work  is  scarce,  even  this  meagre  sup- 


36  NOTES  AND   COMMENTS. 

ply  fails,  and  he  is  compelled  to  fall  back  upon  the  parish 
for  assistance."  The  London  Times  for  October  27,  1874, 
more  than  confirms  the  truthfulness  of  this  picture. 

Judge  Byles  says  :  "  The  furies  of  want,  misery,  and  despair 
scourge  the  emigrants  from  our  shores"  A  writer  in  Fraser's 
Magazine  (London)  for  January,  1848,  says  :  "  The  worst  hor- 
rors of  the  slave-trade  have  been  enacted  in  the  flight  of  British 
subjects  from  their  native  shores." 

Ireland's  pitiful  condition  during  the  reign  of  Queen  Vic- 
toria is  shown  in  the  statistics  of  Irish  population.  In  1841 
the  population  of  Ireland  was  8,199,853.  In  1891  it  was  4,- 
704,750.  Famine,  emigration,  and  free  trade  have  reduced 
the  population  of  Ireland  in  fifty  years  of  Queen  Victoria's 
reign  over  42  per  cent. 

In  Great  Britain  it  is  a  common  sight  to  see  women  and 
children  engaged  in  employments  to  which  they  are  wholly 
unsuited.  In  the  London  Iron  for  May  29, 1875,  we  read  the 
following  :  "  The  public  have  been  frequently  horrified  by 
tales  of  the  oppression  and  demoralization  of  young  women 
in  the  nail-making  districts,  and  now,  thanks  to  the  Chain- 
makers'  Association,  like  revelations  have  been  made,  in  con- 
nection with  another  branch  of  ironwork,  of  an  evil  which 
has  been  going  on  for  a  considerable  period  unnoticed  until 
the  local  press  brought  it  under  the  eye  of  the  public.  Vis- 
iting Cradley  Heath,  in  company  with  a  deputation  of  the 
above-named  association,  the  special  commissioner  of  the  Wol- 
verhampton  Daily  News  entered  a  smithy  where  he  found 
'  a  graceful,  fair-haired  girl  of  fifteen  summers '  turning  out 
links  of  twisted  dog-chain.  The  work,  especially  in  summer, 
is  laborious  and  continuous — 'there  is  no  break,  no  intermis- 
sion for  a  single  moment.  From  the  anvil  to  the  bellows, 


GREAT  BRITAIN'S  INDUSTRIAL  POLICY.  37 

and  back  again,  it  goes  on  from  morning  to  night,  day  after 
day.'  And  the  days  are  of  eleven  or  twelve  hours  each,  if 
not  longer.  The  poor  girl  thus  interviewed  scarcely  knew, 
indeed,  how  long  she  worked  ;  but  she  had  eighteen  chains 
to  make  before  she  finished  that  day.  Neither  had  she  any 
idea  how  much  she  earned,  for  her  mother  took  the  money. 
There  is  even  worse  than  this  behind.  In  the  summer  time 
we  are  told  the  temperature  is  such  that  both  men  and  wom- 
en strip  to  the  waist.  Many  of  these  women  are  married, 
and  the  husbands  of  many  of  them  are  living  in  compara- 
tive idleness  on  the  labor  of  their  universally  overworked 
wives.  The  commission  and  deputation  visited  an  immense 
number  of  shops  in  Cradley  and  neighboring  villages,  and 
found  in  all  of  them  girls  and  women  of  all  ages  working  in 
the  same  unwomanly  way.  .  .  From  what  could  be  gath- 
ered some  of  the  poor  creatures  toil  unceasingly  at  the  forge 
twelve  or  thirteen  hours  a  day  for  from  6s.  to  7s.  a  week." 

In  the  London  Times  of  Tuesday,  September  28,  1875,  is 
published  a  statement  from  Mr.  Baker,  inspector  of  factories, 
for  the  half  year  ending  with  April,  1875,  which  gives  ex- 
tracts from  a  remarkable  report  made  to  him  by  Mr.  Sub- 
Inspector  Brewer  on  the  nail  and  chain  district  of  the  Black 
Country,  from  which  we  quote  :  "  I  am  continually  asked 
whether  I  can  not  do  something  to  stop  women's  labor,  es- 
pecially in  and  around  Hulesowen,  (where  hundreds  work, 
making  the  large  nails  or  spikes,)  and  where  it  is  the  order 
of  the  day,  and  is  far  fitter  for  men  than  for  women.  And 
these  women  work  night  and  day,  and  toil  and  slave,  and  for 
what?  Not  for  the  price  that  straightforward  masters  would 
give,  but  for  any  price  any  crafty  knave  of  a  master  chooses 
to  offer.  Day  by  day  I  am  more  and  more  convinced  that 


38  NOTES  AND  COMMENTS. 

this  women's  labor  is  the  bane  of  this  place.    Nor  do  I  con- 
fine this  remark  to  the  nail  and  chain  trade  alone.     . 
Nor  is  this  state  of  things  confined  to  the  Black  Country." 

In  1892  Nathaniel  McKay,  of  New  York,  visited  Eng- 
land and  upon  his  return  he  testified  as  follows :  "  I  saw 
thousands  of  women  working  for  1  shilling  3  pence  a  day, 
making  chains  from  7  o'clock  in  the  morning  until  9  o'clock 
at  night."  About  the  time  of  Mr.  McKay's  visit  John  Bur- 
nett, a  labor  commissioner,  made  an  investigation  of  the  con- 
dition of  the  nail  and  chain  makers  of  South  Staffordshire 
and  East  Worcestershire,  and  reported  as  follows :  "  T.  Fas- 
back,  whose  shop  I  visited,  seemed  a  steady,  respectable  man. 
In  a  good  week  he  said  he  could  clear  12  shillings.  His  boy 
there,  who  was  over  fourteen  years  old,  could  earn  3  shil- 
lings 6  pence  by  working  from  7  to  7.  He  had  also  a  daugh- 
ter of  twenty-three,  who  made  traces  and  could  earn  5  shil- 
lings 6  pence,  and  a  girl  of  seventeen,  who  could  earn  3  shil- 
lings 6  pence.  A  question  as  to  how  much  it  cost  them  for 
butcher's  meat  was  received  with  scornful  laughter.  Meat 
and  potatoes,  it  appeared,  was  a  treat  reserved  for  Sundays 
only,  and  very  often  they  did  not  have  any  then." 

The  London  Iron,  referring  to  this  subject,  said  that  Lord 
Shaftesbury  (a  second  Howard)  had  "taken  up  the  cause  of 
the  unfortunate  women  whose  sad  condition  Mr.  Inspector 
Baker's  report  has  made  public."  The  same  paper  for  July 
10,  1875,  referred  in  the  following  language  to  the  condi- 
tion of  the  factory  operatives  in  Manchester :  "  Previous  to 
the  successful  termination  of  the  movement  for  the  emanci- 
pation of  what  were  by  no  extravagant  figure  of  speech  de- 
nominated '  white  slaves/  whose  emancipation  was  as  stren- 
uously opposed  by  their  masters  as  that  of  the  negroes  was 


GREAT  BRITAIN'S  INDUSTRIAL  POLICY.  39 

by  theirs,  one  of  the  most  painful  spectacles  to  be  witnessed 
in  Manchester  or  any  of  the  cotton  towns  was  that  present- 
ed by  the  issuing  from  one  of  the  large  factories  of  its  crowd 
of  pale-faced,  stunted,  and  crippled  operatives." 

The  London  Mining  Journal  for  October  10,  1885,  says : 
"  The  employment  of  girls  and  women  at  coal  mines  has 
long  been  a  standing  reproach  to  some  of  our  mine  owners. 
The  total  number  of  females  employed  at  coal  mines  in  1884 
was  4,458,  of  which  329  were  between  the  ages  of  13  and 
16  and  3  between  10  and  13.  In  1883,  however,  the  total 
number  employed  was  4,479,  of  which  one  was  between  10 
and  13  and  288  between  13  and  16,  so  that  there  was  a  de- 
crease of  21  in  1884  as  compared  with  the  previous  year. 

^ 

The  late  Lord  Shaftesbury  succeeded  in  forcing  females  out 
of  the  mines  in  Great  Britain,  and  the  time  has  certainly 
come,  in  our  opinion,  when  they  should  not  be  allowed  to 
work  on  the  pit  banks.  The  only  reason  that  can  be  assigned 
for  their  employment  is  that  they  do  a  certain  amount  of  work 
for  less  money  than  it  would  be  done  for  by  men."  The  report 
of  Her  Majesty's  inspectors  of  mines  for  1896  shows  that  5,- 
114  women  and  girls  were  employed  in  that  year  at  British 
coal  and  other  mines.  In  England  thousands  of  young  girls 
are  still  employed  in  carrying  clay  in  the  brickyards. 

In  the  evidence  taken  at  Wolverhampton  in  1875,  before 
the  Royal  Commissioner  appointed  to  inquire  into  the  work- 
ing of  the  Workshop  and  Factory  Acts,  the  following  facts 
were  elicited  :  That  boys  under  ten  years  are  permitted  to 
work  in  the  coal-pits,  and  boys  under  twelve  years  to  work 
full  time  and  all  night  in  the  iron  trade ;  that  large  numbers 
of  young  girls  and  young  boys  not  attending  school  work 
regularly  in  the  brickyards ;  that  the  employment  of  women 


40  NOTES  AND   COMMENTS. 

on  the  pit-banks  is  their  "common  industry"  in  Shropshire 
and  Wigan,  and  that  their  work  is  "  very  hard — worse  than 
nail  and  chain  making ; "  and  that  if  women  were  prevented 
from  working  at  the  collieries  and  in  similar  employments 
"  it  would  have  the  effect  of  making  ironstone  7s.  per  ton  more 
than  now,  because  large  wages  would  have  to  be  given  to  the 
men  to  do  the  work"  Mr.  John  Sparrow,  of  the  Bilston  iron 
works  and  Millfields  furnaces,  stated  to  the  Commissioner 
that  his  business  was  seriously  interrupted  because  he  was 
prohibited  from  employing  boys  under  thirteen  years  as  un- 
derhand puddlers.  At  the  first  regular  meeting  of  the  Brit- 
ish Iron  Trade  Association,  held  at  London  in  February, 
1876,  Mr.  Bleckley,  of  Warrington,  a  member,  remarked  that 
"he  considered  it  a  hardship  that  children  of  twelve  years  of 
age  were  not  allowed  to  work  in  the  rolling  mills."  The  Lon- 
don Iron  and  Coal  Trades  Review  for  May  3,  1895,  contains 
a  long  report  of  an  interview  on  May  1st  of  a  deputation  of 
the  British  Iron  Trade  Association  with  the  Home  Secretary 
of  Her  Majesty's  Government,  in  which  the  ironmasters  vig- 
orously protested  against  that  feature  of  the  new  Factories 
and  Workshops  bill,  then  pending  in  the  House  of  Commons, 
which  proposed  to  extend  the  age  at  which  boys  may  be  em- 
ployed at  night  from  14  to  16  years. 

At  the  Woolen  Trade  Banquet  in  New  York,  on  Decem- 
ber 14,  1870,  the  Hon.  William  E.  Dodge,  president  of  the 
Chamber  of  Commerce  of  the  City  of  New  York,  delivered 
an  address,  in  which  he  said:  "The  term,  now  so  generally 
used,  of  'pauper  labor,'  which  our  free  trade  papers  use  in 
such  derision,  has  yet  in  it  a  great  deal  of  truth.  I  have  vis- 
ited many  of  the  large  manufactories  of  England  and  have 
seen  evidences  of  poverty  which  I  trust  our  laborers  will  nev- 


GREAT  BRITAIN'S  INDUSTRIAL  POLICY.  41 

er  experience.  I  have  seen  in  the  iron  mills  of  Wales  young 
girls,  with  their  heavy  shoes  and  short  woolen  dresses,  wheel- 
ing iron,  cinder,  coals,  etc.,  at  night,  among  the  half-naked 
puddlers,  doing  the  work  done  by  men  and  boys  in  our  mills, 
and  receiving  for  a  week's  wages  what  we  pay  for  a  day." 

How  cheaply  female  labor  in  Wales  may  now  be  obtain- 
ed can  easily  be  inferred  from  the  frank  admission  of  the 
London  Iron  and  Steel  Trades  Journal  for  April  12,  1890. 
That  paper  then  said:  "The  great  obstacle  to  tlnplate  making 
on  a  large  scale  in  the  States  is  tlie  entire  absence  of  cheap 
female  labor,  so  necessary  in  the  industry  and  so  abundant 
in  Wales"  The  same  paper  for  December  5,  1891,  is  even 
more  candid.  It  tells  its  readers  that  "  in  Wales  the  adult 
workpeople  have  been  engaged  in  the  tinplate  trade  from 
childhood,  and  their  children,  as  soon  as  capable,  assist  in 
the  mills.  It  is,  indeed,  not  an  uncommon  occurrence  to  find 
whole  families  working  together.  The  making  of  tinplates 
as  the  children  grow  to  men  and  women  becomes  a  habit, 
and  they  acquire  great  dexterity,  saving  much  time  and  la- 
bor, and  the  wages  of  the  female  laborers  and  children  are  but 
a  tithe  of  what  American  skilled  workmen  would  demand" 

Less  than  a  score  of  years  before  Mr.  Dodge's  experience 
it  was  lawful  in  Great  Britain  for  children  as  young  as  sev- 
en years  to  work  in  cotton  factories  and  at  other  employ- 
ments, and  thousands  of  these  innocents  were  thus  employed. 

A  few  years  prior  to  Victoria's  accession  the  pitiful  con- 
dition of  the  children  employed  in  English  factories  became 
a  subject  of  public  comment,  and  apparently  for  the  first 
time.  In  John  Ashton's  When  William  IV.  Was  King,  print- 
ed by  D.  Appleton  &  Co.  in  1897,  we  read  what  one  Tory 
champion  of  the  helpless  factory  children  said  in  1832  in  a 


42  NOTES  AND  COMMENTS. 

speech  at  Huddersfield  :  "  Take  then  a  little  captive,  and  I 
will  not  picture  fiction  to  you,  but  I  will  tell  you  what  I 
have  seen.  Take  a  little  captive  six  years  old ;  she  shall  rise 
from  her  bed  at  4  o'clock  in  the  morning  of  a  cold  winter's 
day ;  but  before  that  she  wakes  perhaps  half  a  dozen  times 
and  says,  '  Father,  is  it  time  ?  Father,  is  it  time  ? '  And  at 
last,  when  she  gets  up,  and  puts  her  little  bits  of  rags  upon 
her  weary  limbs,  weary  with  the  last  day's  work,  she  trudg- 
es onward  through  rain  and  snow  to  the  mill,  perhaps  two 
miles,  or  at  least  one  mile ;  and  there,  for  thirteen,  fourteen, 
fifteen,  sixteen,  seventeen,  or  even  eighteen  hours,  she  is  oblig- 
ed to  work,  with  only  thirty  minutes'  interval.  The  girl  I 
am  speaking  of  died,  but  she  dragged  on  that  dreadful  exist- 
ence for  several  years.  Homeward  again  at  night  she  would 
go,  when  she  was  able ;  but  many  a  time  she  hid  herself  in 
the  wool  at  the  mill,  as  she  had  not  strength  to  go.  But 
this  is  not  an  isolated  case.  I  wish  it  were."  Nothing  of  con- 
sequence was  done  for  nearly  twenty  years  to  mitigate  the 
evils  complained. of  by  this  Tory  speaker. 

Rev.  Benjamin  Waugh,  who  appears  to  be  an  English 
clergyman,  pictures  as  follows  in  May,  1897,  the  condition 
of  the  children  of  England's  poor  at  the  accession  of  Victo- 
ria to  the  British  throne  in  1837  :  "  The  sight  of  its  activi- 
ties under  the  earth,  in  coal  and  metallic  mines,  would  sug- 
gest a  land  as  intelligently  benighted,  as  destitute  even  of  a 
single  star  of  justice,  for,  at  least,  the  children  found  there,  as 
the  mines  themselves  are  of  the  light  of  the  sun.  Let  the 
imaginary  traveler  leave  the  damp,  dark  mines,  and  enter 
the  factories  picturesquely  situated  by  wooded  streams,  sights 
pitiable  as  those  we  associate  with  the  cotton  plantations 
of  slavery  would  deepen  the  impression  received  from  the 


GREAT  BRITAIN'S  INDUSTRIAL  POLICY.  43 

world  underground.  Turning  to  the  bricks  of  which  the  fac- 
tories were  built  the  traveler  would  find  them  stained  with  the 
tears,  almost  tears  of  blood,  of  little  lives  which  had  toiled 
and  sickened  in  making  them  out  of  the  clay  of  the  fields 
from  which  they  had  been  brought.  He  would  see  in  the 
fields  of  agriculture  gangs  of  child  stone-pickers,  and  stoop- 
ing toilers  he  would  see  in  all  weathers  wearing  out  their 
young  lives  under  the  '  gangers' '  orders,  and  on  the  canal 
boatloads  of  little  paupers  going  to  the  Children's  Market. 
Guardians  literally  sold  their  children  to  any  one  who  would 
buy  them.  As  small  human  lives  capable  of  suffering  and 
of  happiness  they  had  no  value  ;  their  value  was  to  enable 
trade  to  produce,  and  to  supply  markets  with  a  cheap  abun- 
dance. In  homes  where  nature  had  its  way  and  the  family 
was  true  to  family  instincts  children  were,  of  course,  looked 
upon  as  they  are  to-day ;  but  to  the  children  of  the  dead 
poor,  and  the  children  of  the  worthless  living,  children  un- 
loved and  unwanted,  to  be  counted  by  tens  of  thousands, 
treated  worse  than  infant  slaves  were  treated,  the  attitude  of 
Parliament,  which  ought  to  have  been  one  of  interest,  was 
one  of  indifference." 

These  wrongs  to  children  have  been  largely  righted  dur- 
ing the  reign  of  Queen  Victoria,  but  not  wholly.  That  they 
should  have  had  an  existence  at  so  late  a  period  in  the 
world's  history  as  the  beginning  and  early  part  of  her  reign, 
and  in  England  of  all  other  European  countries,  is  a  shame- 
ful fact,  to  say  the  least. 

Mr.  Kay's  book  is  filled  with  evidence  showing  that  drunk- 
enness, immorality,  brutality,  Sabbath-breaking,  poaching, 
rank  ignorance,  small  and  crowded  tenements,  insufficient 
food,  diseases  incident  to  lack  of  proper  nourishment,  and  ex- 


44  NOTES  AND  COMMENTS. 

cessively  filthy  habits  and  surroundings  are  characteristics  of 
large  numbers  of  the  working  classes  of  England,  Scotland, 
and  Wales.  The  reader  of  Mr.  Kay's  book  passes  over  the 
narrative  of  these  conditions  with  a  shudder.  The  responsi- 
bility for  the  low  condition  of  morality  and  the  miserable 
character  of  the  habitations  among  the  working  classes  of 
England  and  Wales  is  ascribed  by  Mr.  Kay  to  "the  low 
rate  of  wages  "  they  receive,  to  the  neglect  of  their  intellec- 
tual and  moral  training  by  the  authorities,  to  the  utter  indif- 
ference of  the  masters  to  their  comfort,  and  to  the  lack  in 
every  breast  of  a  cheerful  hope  of  better  days.  Mr.  Kay 
states  that  in  Byrnmaur  "nearly  every  family  is  in  the  em- 
ployment of  Mr.  Bailey,  the  ironmaster,  whose  works  are  at 
Nantyglo.  The  town  reeks  with  dirt ;  there  are  no  lamps  or 
effective  drainage ;  and  .  .  not  the  slightest  step  has  been 
taken  to  improve  the  mental  or  moral  condition  of  the  vio- 
lent and  vicious  community.  Neither  church  nor  school  has 
been  established  by  those  who  employ  the  people  or  own  the 
land ;  and  the  only  step  that  has  been  taken  for  their  bene- 
fit is  that  of  establishing  within  a  week  or  two  of  this  time 
a  police  station."  These  words  were  printed  in  1850. 

In  Benjamin  Disraeli's  SyMl,  first  printed  in  1845,  there 
are  to  be  found  appalling  pictures  of  wretchedness  and  mis- 
ery among  the  working  men  and  women  and  the  children 
of  England  that  we  have  no  heart  to  reproduce  even  in  the 
faintest  outline.  That  these  pictures  were  copied  from  real 
life  and  were  not  works  of  the  imagination  the  distinguish- 
ed author  certifies  in  the  "advertisement"  which  forms  the 
introduction  to  his  remarkable  book.  When  it  was  first 
printed  Queen  Victoria  had  been  on  the  throne  eight  years. 
Walter  Besant  and  other  recent  English  writers  have  given 


GREAT  BRITAIN'S  INDUSTRIAL  POLICY.  45 

accounts  of  English  wretchedness  and  misery  that  are  fully 
as  truthful  and  graphic  as  the  story  of  Sybil.  Mrs.  Annie 
Besant  and  even  John  Ruskin  have  narrated  harrowing  tales 
of  the  painful  and  frequently  unsuccessful  efforts  of  the  poor 
of  London  to  keep  themselves  from  starving. 

Of  the  needlewomen  of  London  at  the  present  day  Mrs. 
Besant  says :  "  Our  death  rate  is  heavy  there.  They  die  of 
starvation,  of  low  fever,  of  bronchitis,  of  all  diseases  that  feed 
on  underclothed  and  underfed  bodies.  Women  work  thirteen, 
fourteen,  fifteen  hours,  with  nothing  to  make  them  strong  or 
warm  but  the  hot  water  they  call  tea  and  a  thin  shawl  that 
has  seen  many  winters.  The  cold  strikes  home,  and  they  say 
at  the  hospital,  '  bronchitis.'  It  is  not.  It  is  slow  starvation. 
We  kill  women  by  the  thousand,  while  their  sisters  go  dia- 
mond-decked. That  is  London  in  its  wealth  and  its  poverty." 

In  a  report  of  the  Christian  Instruction  Society  of  Great 
Britain  which  appeared  in  1897  one  of  its  agents  says: 
"  Two  widows  I  know  of  in  Mile-End,  New  Town,  who  make 
sunshades  and  umbrellas.  For  one  dozen  of  the  former,  and 
using  her  own  thread,  and  making  them  entirely,  the  maker 
gets  six  pence ;  for  the  latter  1  shilling  a  dozen.  They  take 
in  their  work  every  evening,  sit  up  late,  and  rise  early,  with 
little  nourishment,  if  any,  to  get  the  work  done."  These  are 
literally  starvation  wages.  The  case  is  one  of  thousands. 

Of  the  struggle  for  existence  of  the  dock  laborers  of  Lon- 
don Mrs.  Besant  says :  "  You  must  get  up  early  or  stay  up 
late  in  order  to  see  the  struggle  here.  You  must  be  at  the 
dock  gates  by  2  or  3  o'clock  in  the  morning.  There  are  20,- 
000  to  25,000  men  gathered  around  the  gates,  for  the  earli- 
est there  get  the  first  chance.  A  man  appears  and  calls  out 
for  so  many.  Then  begins  a  literal  fight  for  life.  Arms  and 


46  NOTES  AND  COMMENTS. 

ribs  have  been  broken  in  the  struggle.  Surgeons  say  that 
more  than  sixty  per  cent,  of  these  men  are  injured  by  acci- 
dents. The  work  needs  strength,  and  many  are  faint  from 
hunger.  They  often  fall  into  the  water  on  account  of  imper- 
fect appliances,  and  are  struck  by  the  swinging  bales.  One- 
third  are  always  turned  away  without  employment,  to  go 
back  to  hungry  wives  and  children  crying  for  lack  of  food." 

General  William  Booth,  of  the  Salvation  Army,  in  his 
book  entitled  In  Darkest  England,  printed  in  1890,  after 
Queen  Victoria  had  been  on  the  throne  fifty-three  years,  de- 
scribes the  destitution  and  the  degradation  of  the  poor  of 
London  in  language  which  is  sickening.  The  facts  which 
he  narrates  in  convincing  detail  would  be  a  reproach  to  the 
most  barbarous  race  of  men  and  women  that  the  world  has 
ever  known.  To  his  terrible  picture  of  destitution  among 
the  working  classes  of  London  and  other  parts  of  England 
he  adds  the  opinion  that  "deaths  from  actual  hunger  are 
more  common  than  is  generally  supposed." 

The  Rev.  Stopford  Brooke  says :  "  We  are  pre-eminent  in 
London  in  these  matters.  There  is  nothing  so  terrible  in 
any  other  civilized  city — no,  not  even  in  Paris  or  New  York. 
There  is  nowhere  else  in  the  Christian  world  such  a  mass  of 
wretchedness,  squalor,  and  degradation  as  in  England." 

The  brutality  which  is  so  prominent  a  feature  of  the  so- 
cial life  of  large  numbers  of  colliers  and  other  British  la- 
borers is  the  product  in  large  part  of  the  influences  already 
stated — low  wages,  no  prospect  of  ever  owning  a  home  of 
any  kind,  a  lack  of  common-school  education,  and  a  lack 
of  suitable  religious  training.  Not  even  among  the  North 
American  Indians  do  we  find  examples  of  greater  brutality 
than  are  narrated  in  the  columns  of  English  newspapers. 


GREAT  BRITAIN'S  INDUSTRIAL  POLICY.  47 

Dogs  in  the  mining  districts  of  England  are  frequently  treat- 
ed with  far  more  tenderness  and  consideration  than  the  chil- 
dren of  the  pitmen. 

It  is  sometimes  alleged  as  an  apology  for  the  destitution 
and  wretchedness  so  generally  found  in  Great  Britain  that 
leading  cities  in  the  United  States  are  themselves  great  so- 
cial ulcers — nurseries  of  pauperism  and  vice.  This  statement 
is  true,  but  the  fact  should  not  be  forgotten  that  a  large 
proportion  of  the  paupers  and  criminals  found  in  our  large 
cities  are  foreigners,  who  are  in  no  sense  a  product  of  our 
industrial  policy  or  political  institutions.  They  belong  to  a 
class  of  immigrants  who  are  not  welcome  here  and  are  large- 
ly incapable  of  reformation  and  improvement.  If  it  were 
possible  to  prevent  them  from  coming  to  our  country  the 
destitution  and  crime  which  now  prevail  in  American  cities 
would  be  largely  reduced,  and  all  Europe,  Great  Britain  in- 
cluded, would  have  more  paupers  and  more  criminals  than  it 
now  has,  and  all  its  own. 

In  a  speech  at  Rochdale,  in  December,  1879,  John  Bright 
said  that  "  the  American  tariff  must  be  held  to  be  very  bar- 
barous." If  any  treatment  of  workingmen  and  their  families 
and  of  the  helpless  poor  can  be  found  to  be  more  "  barba- 
rous" than  that  which  has  been  habitually  meted  out  to 
these  classes  in  Great  Britain  during  the  reign  of  Queen 
Victoria  and  under  a  free  trade  policy,  and  which  has  been 
only  imperfectly  described  in  the  preceding  pages,  Mr.  Bright 
has  not  indicated  where  the  proofs  of  this  treatment  are  to 
be  found. 


CHAPTER    Y. 

THE    BEITISH    POLICY   OF    FREE   TRADE. 

IT  is  claimed  by  Mr.  Gladstone  and  other  Englishmen 
that  the  prosperity  of  Great  Britain  during  Queen  Victoria's 
reign  has  been  due  to  the  British  policy  of  free  trade  which 
was  established  in  1846,  and  that,  under  this  policy,  the  wa- 
ges of  British  workingmen  have  been  increased.  But  the 
Sheffield  Telegraph  assured  Mr.  Gladstone  in  1891  that  the 
improved  condition  of  British  labor  "is  no  more  to  be  at- 
tributed to  free  imports,  miscalled  free  trade,  than  the  exist- 
ence of  the  Goodwin  Sands  is  to  be  credited  to  the  neighbor- 
hood of  the  steeple  of  Tenterden  Church,"  and  in  the  same 
year  the  London  Times,  also  replying  to  Mr.  Gladstone,  said : 
"  Workingmen,  however,  know  that  a  corresponding  improve- 
ment has  been  the  rule  in  countries  where  protection  has 
been  enforced  most  stringently,  in  France  and  Germany,  and 
still  more  remarkably  in  the  United  States." 

The  Telegraph  discusses  this  subject  further  as  follows : 
"To  what  causes  is  the  increase  of  British  wages  since  1860 
assignable?  First,  to  protection.  The  remarkable  develop- 
ment of  manufactures  in  the  United  States  during  the  dec- 
ade 1860-70,  together  with  the  paucity  of  American  labor 
during  its  first  five  years,  which  were  years  of  war,  created  a 
rate  of  compensation  for  labor  which  up  to  that  time  would 
have  been  regarded  as  fabulous.  British  manufacturers  had  to 
raise  the  pay  of  their  workmen  or  see  the  best  of  them  leave  in 
mass  for  the  United  States.  The  large  outputs  of  gold  and 


GREAT  BRITAIN'S  INDUSTRIAL  POLICY.  49 

silver  in  America,  Africa,  and  Australia  also  may  have  had 
something  to  do  with  increasing  British  wages  by  increasing 
the  volume  of  money  in  circulation.  But  the  wonderful  in- 
crease of  American  wages  and  industries  between  1860  and  1870 
probably  ivas  the  starting  point  of  the  British  increase." 

The  improvement  in  the  wages  of  British  workingmen 
during  Queen  Victoria's  reign,  as  has  already  been  shown, 
has  not  been  shared  by  millions  of  the  poor  of  Great  Brit- 
ain, so  that,  even  if  Mr.  Gladstone's  claim  were  true,  there 
must  be  something  radically  wrong  in  a  system  of  political 
economy  which  stimulates  only  special  industries  and  does 
not  in  any  way  aim  to  lift  up  the  helpless  masses. 

In  a  speech  at  Toledo,  Ohio,  on  February  12,  1891,  Will- 
iam McKinley,  then  a  Representative  in  Congress,  quoted 
Charles  Kingsley,  "whose  memory  is  cherished  wherever  the 
English  tongue  is  spoken,"  as  follows :  "  Next  you  have  the 
Manchester  school,  from  which  Heaven  defend  us !  For  all 
narrow,  conceited,  hypocritical,  and  anarchic  schemes  of  the 
universe  the  Cobden  and  Bright  one  is  exactly  the  worst. 
To  pretend  to  be  the  workman's  friends  by  keeping  down  the 
price  of  bread  when  all  they  want  thereby  is  to  keep  down 
wages  and  increase  profits,  and  in  the  meantime  to  widen  the 
gulf  between  the  workingman  and  all  that  is  time-honored  and 
chivalrous  in  English  society,  that  they  may  make  the  men 
their  divided  slaves — that  is,  perhaps  half  unconsciously,  for 
there  are  excellent  men  among  them,  the  game  of  the  Man- 
chester school." 

The  Manchester  school  to  which  Charles  Kingsley  referred 
is  the  school  of  free  trade.  That  it  has  unduly  and  abnor- 
mally, even  if  successfully,  built  up  the  manufacturing  indus- 
tries of  Great  Britain  should  be  conceded  ;  that  it  has  done 


50  NOTES  AND   COMMENTS. 

this  by  sacrificing  the  comfort  and  welfare  of  millions  of 
the  skilled  and  unskilled  working  people  of  Great  Britain 
free  trade  writers  should  frankly  confess. 

In  the  same  speech  Mr.  McKinley  quoted  as  follows  the 
words  of  Cardinal  Manning,  written  in  December,  1890,  and 
published  in  the  Nineteenth  Century,  an  English  magazine. 
Speaking  of  free  trade,  "  freedom  of  trade,"  the  Cardinal 
said :  "  This  freedom  of  trade  has  immensely  multiplied  all 
branches  of  commerce  and  developed  the  energies  of  all  our 
industrial  population.  But  it  has  created  two  things — the  ir- 
responsible wealth,  which  stagnates,  and  the  starvation  wages 
of  the  labor  market.  In  four  of  our  western  counties  wages 
are  so  low  that  men  come  to  London  by  thousands  every 
year,  and,  being  here,  crowd  the  dock-gates  and  underbid  the 
permanent  workingmen,  who  have  already  reason  not  to  be 
content  with  their  hire.  We  have  these  two  worlds  always 
and  openly  face  to  face — the  world  of  wealth  and  the  world 
of  want ;  the  world  of  wealth  saying  in  its  heart,  '  I  sit  as 
queen  over  all  toilers  and  traders,'  and  the  world  of  want 
not  knowing  what  may  be  on  the  morrow.  Every  city  and 
town  has  its  unemployed.  Millions  are  in  poverty." 

When  Richard  Cobden  was  engaged  more  than  fifty  years 
ago  in  denouncing  the  protective  policy  which  was  then  in 
force  in  Great  Britain  he  said  in  one  of  his  speeches :  "When 
I  go  down  to  the  manufacturing  districts  I  know  that  I  shall 
be  returning  to  a  gloomy  scene.  I  know  that  starvation  is 
stalking  through  the  land,  and  that  men  are  perishing  for  want 
of  the  merest  necessaries  of  life."  Mr.  Cobden,  Mr.  Bright,  and 
others  succeeded  in  substituting  the  British  policy  of  free 
trade  for  the  British  policy  of  protection,  but  the  testimony 
of  Charles  Kingsley,  Cardinal  Manning,  and  other  authori- 


GREAT  BRITAIN'S  INDUSTRIAL  POLICY.  51 

ties  we  have  quoted  proves  that  under  free  trade  the  starva- 
tion that  Mr.  Cobden  referred  to  is  still  "stalking  through 
the  land,"  and  that  in  "Merrie  England"  men  and  women 
and  children  are  still  "  perishing  for  want  of  the  merest  nec- 
essaries of  life."  Whether  under  protection  or  under  free 
trade  the  steady,  persistent,  and  uncompromising  aim  of  the 
manufacturing  and  commercial  classes  of  Great  Britain  has 
always  been  to  advance  their  own  interests  regardless  of 
the  weal  or  wo  of  the  poor  people  who  must  work  for  such 
wages  as  are  given  to  them  or  starve. 

Xor  have  the  agricultural  interests  of  Great  Britain  pros- 
pered under  the  teachings  of  the  Manchester  school.  They 
have  fared  as  badly  undej  the  free  trade  of  Queen  Victoria's 
reign  as  they  did  hundreds  of  years  ago  before  a  protective 
tariff  first  formed  a  part  of  the  economic  policy  of  the  Eng- 
lish Government.  English  agriculture  languished,  as  did  all 
other  English  industries,  until  the  predecessors  of  Queen  Vic- 
toria began  the  work  of  protecting  English  industries  against 
foreign  competition  ;  it  is  again  languishing  because  of  the 
withdrawal  of  protection  fifty  years  ago.  We  quote  as  follows 
from  an  article  in  the  New  York  Sun  for  August  24,  1897. 

"Official  and  conclusive  proof  of  the  irreparable  decline 
of  farming  in  Great  Britain  is  furnished  in  the  lately  pub- 
lished report  of  the  Royal  Commission  on  agricultural  de- 
pression. The  commission  was  appointed  in  1893  ;  it  has 
sat  177  days ;  it  has  heard  many  scores  of  voluntary  witness- 
es, and  it  has  profited  by  the  expert  observations  of  agents 
delegated  to  visit  specially  selected  areas  in  England,  Wales, 
and  Scotland.  The  gross  annual  value  of  land  in  England 
and  Wales,  which  in  1879-80  was  about  $259,000,000,  had 
fallen  in  1893-94  to  0200,000,000,  a  decrease  of  $59,000,000. 


52  NOTES  AND  COMMENTS. 

In  Scotland  during  the  same  period  the  decrease  in  gross 
annual  value  exceeded  $7,500,000.  The  reduction  in  the 
number  of  male  wage-earners  in  agriculture  in  Great  Britain 
between  1871  and  1891  was  187,356,  the  decrease  in  the  first 
ten  years  of  the  period  having  been  105,414.  In  the  number 
of  female  wage-earners  the  reduction  between  1871  and  1881 
was  16,385,  and  between  1881  and  1891  it  was  38,312.  In 
other  words,  while  the  total  population  of  Great  Britain  rose 
in  twenty  years  from  26,072,284  to  33,028,172,  the  number 
of  the  agricultural  laborers  fell  from  1,161,738  to  919,685. 

"As  to  the  cause  of  the  depression  there  is  no  disagree- 
ment on  the  part  of  the  Commissioners.  All  ascribe  it  to  the 
serious  decline  in  the  prices  of  farm  produce,  which  in  turn 
is  imputed  directly  to  the  pressure  of  foreign  competition.  The 
Commissioners  are  unable  to  agree  upon  any  remedy,  but,  on 
the  contrary,  look  forward  to  a  further  reduction  of  the  area 
of  British  land  susceptible  of  profitable  arable  cultivation, 
together  with  a  corresponding  contraction  of  production  and 
a  diminution  of  the  rural  population." 

In  following  the  teachings  of  the  Manchester  school — in 
unduly  developing  her  manufacturing  interests  at  the  ex- 
pense of  her  agriculture — in  studiously  neglecting  the  best 
interests  of  her  poor  people — Great  Britain  has  set  a  bad 
example  to  the  rest  of  the  world.  No  other  country  is  now 
copying  that  example. 

That  England,  Scotland,  and  Wales,  have  made  great 
progress  during  the  Victorian  era  in  many  of  the  arts  of  an 
exalted  civilization,  and  that  many  of  their  people  are  now 
better  paid  than  when  that  era  had  its  beginning,  we  are 
glad  to  record ;  but  much  of  this  progress  has  been  gained 
despite  the  opposition  of  Britain's  ruling  classes ;  much  of 


GREAT  BRITAIN'S  INDUSTRIAL  POLICY.  53 

it  is  due  to  the  general  betterment  of  social  conditions  in  all 
progressive  countries  resulting  from  the  discovery  of  gold  in 
California  and  Australia ;  much  of  it  has  resulted  from  the 
high  standard  of  wages  that  has  been  established  in  our  own 
country ;  much  of  it  is  the  result  of  the  scientific  inventions 
of  a  wonderfully  scientific  age ;  and  much  of  it  is  traceable 
to  the  influence  of  the  freedom-loving  spirit  of  the  new  era 
which  was  ushered  in  by  the  American  and  the  French 
Revolutions.  The  fact  remains,  however,  that  the  condi- 
tion of  the  agricultural  laborer,  the  coal  miner,  the  factory 
hand,  the  iron  worker,  the  man  without  a  trade,  and  the 
great  army  of  the  unemployed  is  still  hard  and  hopeless, 
while  that  of  the  London  poor  is  pitiable  and  deplorable. 
All  this  has  been  true  during  the  whole  of  Queen  Victoria's 
long  reign  ;  it  is  true  to-day.  Mr.  Gladstone  and  other  Eng- 
lishmen who  believe  in  free  trade  should  in  all  fairness  tell 
the  whole  truth  and  not  a  part  of  it. 

That  Mr.  Gladstone  is  not  a  correct  reporter  of  current 
events  and  that  it  is  possible  for  his  prejudices  to  blind  his 
judgment  is  illustrated  by  the  great  mistake  he  once  made 
in  forecasting  the  future  of  the  Southern  Confederacy.  In  a 
speech  at  Newcastle  in  October,  1862,  Mr.  Gladstone  said : 
"  We  may  have  our  own  opinions  about  slavery ;  we  may  be 
for  or  against  the  South.  But  there  is  no  doubt  about  this : 
Jefferson  Davis  and  the  other  leaders  of  the  South  have 
made  an  army ;  they  are  making  a  navy ;  and  they  have 
made  what  is  more  than  these — they  have  made  a  nation. 
We  may  anticipate  with  certainty  the  success  of  the  Southern 
States  so  far  as  regards  their  entire  separation  from  the  North. 
I,  for  my  own  part,  can  not  but  believe  that  that  event  is 
as  certain  as  any  event  yet  future  and  contingent  can  be." 


CHAPTEE  VI. 

THE   DESTRUCTION   OF   IRISH    MANUFACTURES. 

THE  hard  treatment  which  Ireland  has  always  received 
from  England  is  a  subject  with  which  every  student  of  his- 
tory is  more  or  less  familiar ;  but  every  reader  of  history 
does  not  realize  that  the  present  impoverished  condition  of 
that  unhappy  country  is  mainly  the  result  of  a  policy  of 
repression  and  stamping  out  which  England  pursued  toward 
the  manufactures  of  Ireland  in  the  sixteenth,  seventeenth, 
and  eighteenth  centuries.  The  Right  Hon.  Sir  John  Bar- 
nard Byles,  himself  an  Englishman,  says  that  "for  a  long 
course  of  years  Ireland's  manufactures  were  systematically 
discouraged  and  stifled,  while  England's  were,  at  the  same 
time,  protected  and  cherished." 

There  is  a  pitiful  story  told  by  Mr.  Commissioner  Mac 
Carthy,  of  Dublin,  in  Harper's  Monthly  for  January,  1889, 
of  the  persistent  and  relentless  efforts  of  the  English  Gov- 
ernment to  stamp  out  the  woolen  industry  of  Ireland.  In 
the  thirty-third  year  of  the  reign  of  Henry  VIII.  the  im- 
portation of  Irish  woolen  goods  into  England  was  prohibit- 
ed. This  legislation  was  re-enacted  in  the  thirteenth  year  of 
the  reign  of  Elizabeth,  and  afterwards,  when  Charles  I.  was 
on  the  throne,  the  exportation  of  Irish  woolens  to  all  coun- 
tries was  prohibited.  In  the  closing  years  of  the  seventeenth 
century  William  III.,  in  reply  to  addresses  from  both  houses 
of  the  English  Parliament,  pledged  himself  "  to  do  all  that 
in  him  lay  to  discourage  the  woolen  manufactures  of  Ire- 


GREAT  BRITAIN'S  INDUSTRIAL  POLICY.  55 

land,"  and  true  to  this  promise  the  exportation  of  woolen 
goods  from  Ireland  was  again  prohibited  by  the  English 
statute  known  as  10  and  11  William  III.,  chapter  10.  Mac 
Carthy  says  that  "  armed  cruisers  were  stationed  in  Irish 
ports  and  seas  to  enforce  this  enactment."  Edmund  Burke 
says  that  "the  whole  woolen  trade  of  Ireland,  the  natural 
staple  of  that  kingdom,  was  deliberately  destroyed."  Mac 
Carthy  adds  that  "other  Irish  industries  followed  the  fate 
of  the  Irish  woolen  trade,  the  only  notable  exceptions  being 
the  linen  trade  of  Ulster  and  the  butter  trade  of  the  south." 
Dean  Swift  wrote  in  1727 :  "  Ireland  is  the  only  kingdom  I 
ever  heard  or  read  of,  either  in  ancient  or  modern  story, 
which  was  denied  the  liberty  of  exporting  their  native  com- 
modities and  manufactures  wherever  they  pleased,  except  to 
countries  at  war  with  their  own  prince  or  State." 

In  the  latter  part  of  the  eighteenth  century,  in  1779  and 
1780,  influenced  probably  by  the  successful  revolt  of  the 
thirteen  English  colonies  in  America,  these  unjust  restrictions 
were  removed,  and  for  a  few  years  the  manufacturing  indus- 
tries of  Ireland  prospered,  but  only  for  a  few  years.  At  the 
beginning  of  the  present  century,  January  1, 1801,  when  the 
political  union  of  Ireland  with  England  was  formally  com- 
pleted, provision  was  made  in  the  Act  of  Union  for  gradual- 
ly abrogating  such  measures  of  protection  as  had  yet  retain- 
ed upon  Irish  soil  a  few  of  its  important  manufacturing  in- 
dustries. These  measures  of  protection  were  the  acts  of  the 
Irish  Parliament,  which  the  Act  of  Union  provided  should 
be  gradually  rendered  null  and  void. 

In  1822,  protection  having  then  been  withdrawn  from  all 
Irish  manufactures  but  not  from  any  English  manufactures, 
there  was  a  famine  in  Ireland  and  great  suffering  resulted. 


56  NOTES  AND   COMMENTS. 

William  Cobbett  says  that  "there  was  food  enough  but  no 
money  to  purchase  it."  Large  numbers  of  the  Irish  people 
were  without  employment,  through  no  fault  of  their  own. 
Judge  Byles,  writing  in  1849,  states  the  effect  of  the  aboli- 
tion of  Irish  protective  duties  as  follows :  "  Before  the  Union 
there  were  under  protection  Irish  woolen  manufactures,  Irish 
carpet  manufactures,  Irish  blanket  manufactures,  Irish  silk 
manufactures,  Irish  calico  manufactures,  Irish  flannel  manu- 
factures, and  Irish  stocking  manufactures.  These  manufac- 
tures are  now  smothered  and  extinct."  English  protected  man- 
ufactures first  crushed  these  Irish  manufactures,  and  English 
free  trade,  permeating  every  Irish  town  and  hamlet,  next  de- 
stroyed all  hope  of  their  recovery. 

There  is  no  sadder  chapter  in  the  industrial  history  of 
any  nation  than  that  which  records  the  destruction  of  the 
manufactures  of  Ireland  by  the  Act  of  Union  of  1801,  which 
united  Ireland  to  Great  Britain  in  a  tighter  bond  than  had 
previously  existed,  abolishing  the  Irish  Parliament  and  ob- 
literating the  last  vestige  of  Irish  independence.  The  consum- 
mation of  this  measure  of  English  greed  and  oppression 
was  vigorously  resisted  by  Irish  statesmen,  upon  the  ground, 
among  other  reasons,  that  it  would  destroy  the  manufactures 
of  Ireland,  which  were  then  in  a  flourishing  condition.  The 
protest  of  the  Irish  House  of  Commons  against  the  propos- 
ed Act  of  Union  is  one  of  the  most  eloquent  -and  pitiful  pro- 
tests against  the  perpetration  of  a  political  crime  that  is  to 
be  found  in  the  annals  of  any  oppressed  people.  In  literary 
merit  it  is  not  surpassed  by  our  own  Declaration  of  Inde- 
pendence. Its  reference  to  the  destruction  of  Irish  manufac- 
tures which  would  be  certain  to  follow  the  adoption  of  the 
Act  of  Union  is  in  the  following  words : 


GREAT  BRITAIN'S  INDUSTRIAL  POLICY.  57 

"In  manufactures  any  attempt  it  makes  to  offer  any  ben- 
efit which  we  do  not  now  enjoy  is  vain  and  delusive,  and 
wherever  it  is  to  have  effect  that  effect  will  be  to  our  in- 
jury ;  most  of  the  duties  on  imports  which  operate  as  pro- 
tections to  our  manufactures  are  under  its  provisions  either 
to  be  removed  or  reduced  immediately,  and  those  which  will 
be  reduced  are  to  cease  entirely  at  a  limited  time,  though 
many  of  our  manufactures  owe  their  existence  to  the  protec- 
tion of  those  duties,  and  though  it  is  not  in  the  power  of  hu- 
man wisdom  to  foresee  any  precise  time  when  they  may  be 
able  to  thrive  without  them.  Your  Majesty's  faithful  Com- 
mons feel  more  than  an  ordinary  interest  in  laying  this  fact 
before  you,  because  they  have  under  your  Majesty's  approba- 
tion raised  up  and  nursed  many  of  those  manufactures,  and 
by  so  doing  have  encouraged  much  capital  to  be  vested  in 
them,  the  proprietors  of  which  are  now  to  be  left  unprotect- 
ed and  to  be  deprived  of  the  Parliament  on  whose  faith  they 
embarked  themselves,  their  families,  and  properties  in  the 
undertaking." 

The  conclusion  of  the  protest  of  the  House  of  Commons  is 
in  the  following  eloquent  words :  "  We  feel  it  our  bounden 
duty  to  ourselves,  our  country,  and  our  posterity  to  lay  this 
our  most  solemn  protest  and  prayer  before  your  Majesty,  that 
you  will  be  graciously  pleased  to  extend  your  paternal  pro- 
tection to  your  faithful  and  loyal  subjects,  and  to  save  them 
from  the  danger  threatened  by  your  Majesty's  ministers  in 
this  their  ruinous  and  destructive  project,  humbly  declaring, 
with  the  most  cordial  and  warm  sincerity,  that  we  are  actu- 
ated therein  by  an  irresistible  sense  of  duty,  by  an  unshak- 
en loyalty  to  your  Majesty,  by  a  veneration  for  the  British 
name,  by  an  ardent  attachment  to  the  British  nation  with 


58  NOTES  AND   COMMENTS. 

whom  we  have  so  often  declared  we  will  stand  or  fall,  and  by 
a  determination  to  preserve  forever  the  connection  between 
the  two  kingdoms  on  which  the  happiness,  the  power,  and 
the  strength  of  each  irrevocably  and  unalterably  depend." 

The  protest  of  the  Irish  Peers,  after  reciting  the  evils 
which  the  proposed  measure  would  entail  upon  Ireland  and 
the  dishonorable  means  resorted  to  by  the  British  Govern- 
ment to  secure  its  adoption,  concludes  as  follows:  "Against 
all  these,  and  the  fatal  consequences  they  may  produce,  we 
have  endeavored  to  interpose  our  votes,  and  failing  we  trans- 
mit to  after  times  our  names  in  solemn  protest  on  behalf  of 
the  parliamentary  constitution  of  this  realm,  the  liberty 
which  it  secured,  the  trade  which  it  protected,  the  connection 
which  it  preserved,  and  the  constitution  which  it  supplied 
and  fortified  :  this  we  feel  ourselves  called  upon  to  do  in 
support  of  our  characters,  our  honor,  and  whatever  is  left  to 
us  [that  is]  worthy  to  be  transmitted  to  our  posterity." 

The  results  to  Irish  manufactures  of  the  free  trade  between 
the  two  countries  which  the  Act  of  Union  established  have 
justified  all  the  fears  of  Irish  statesmen.  With  the  sole  ex- 
ception of  the  linen  manufacture,  for  which  the  Irish  climate 
is  especially  adapted,  these  manufactures  have  virtually  per- 
ished. The  Irish  people,  denied  by  free  trade  the  privilege 
of  engaging  in  manufacturing  enterprises,  have  for  nearly  a 
century  been  almost  entirely  restricted  to  small  farming  as  a 
means  of  maintaining  an  existence,  and  the  lands  they  have 
tilled  they  have  been  compelled  to  rent  from  exacting  land- 
lords, without  hope  of  ever  being  able  to  own  them.  In  a 
speech  at  Portland,  Maine,  in  1886,  Mr.  Elaine  said  that  729 
Englishmen  own  one-half  the  land  in  Ireland  and  that  3,000 
other  men  own  most  of  the  other  half.  Exclusive  devotion 


GREAT  BRITAIN'S  INDUSTRIAL  POLICY.  59 

to  agriculture  under  unfavorable  conditions  has  wrought  the 
inevitable  results  of  poverty  and  decadence.  The  population 
of  Ireland  has  declined ;  famine  has  followed  famine ;  unable 
to  live  at  home  the  Irish  people  have  been  forced  to  emigrate 
to  more  hospitable  lands,  and  particularly  to  our  own  land, 
although  there  is  not  a  people  on  earth  who  are  more  attach- 
ed to  the  land  of  their  birth.  In  1841  the  population  of 
Ireland  was  8,199,853  ;  in  1871,  through  famine  and  emigra- 
tion, it  had  fallen  to  5,412,377  ;  in  1891  it  was  only  4,704,- 
750.  Famine  and  emigration  in  a  land  capable  of  support- 
ing twenty  millions  of  people  might  have  been  prevented  in 
large  part  if  not  wholly  if  Irish  manufactures  had  been 
preserved  and  fostered.  But  England  decreed  their  destruc- 
tion and  this  -it  has  accomplished,  as  the  following  circum- 
stantial statements  will  abundantly  testify. 

In  a  speech  delivered  in  Ireland  in  1848  that  patriotic 
Irishman,  Thomas  Francis  Meagher,  said :  "  The  cotton  man- 
ufactures of  Dublin,  which  employed  14,000  operatives,  have 
been  destroyed ;  the  stuff  and  serge  manufactures,  which  em- 
ployed 1,491  operatives,  have  been  destroyed  ;  the  calico 
looms  of  Balbriggan  have  been  destroyed ;  the  flannel  man- 
ufacture of  Rathdrum  has  been  destroyed ;  the  blanket  man- 
ufacture of  Kilkenny  has  been  destroyed ;  the  camlet  trade 
of  Bandon,  which  produced  £100,000  a  year,  has  been  de- 
stroyed ;  the  worsted  and  stuff  manufactures  of  Waterford 
have  been  destroyed ;  the  ratteen  and  frieze  manufactures  of 
Carrick-on-Suir  have  been  destroyed." 

In  an  article  in  The  American,  of  Philadelphia,  in  1886, 
its  editor,  Robert  Ellis  Thompson,  said :  *In  ten  years  [fol- 
lowing the  Act  of  Union]  the  exports  of  woolen  drapery 
fell  from  360,000  yards  to  20,000  yards,  while  the  imports 


60  NOTES  AND   COMMENTS. 

rose  from  600,000  yards  to  2,400,000  yards.  By  1823  the 
export  was  at  an  end,  but  the  import  stood  at  2,500,000 
yards.  But  as  late  as  1822  two-thirds  in  value  or  one-half 
in  amount  of  the  woolen  cloth  used  in  Ireland  was  still 
made  at  home,  while  a  population  of  35,000  derived  sup- 
port from  the  industry.  By  1850  the  number  employed  was 
only  625,  and  the  increase  of  recent  years  has  brought  this 
up  only  to  2,022  in  1879.  The  first  mill  for  cotton  was  built 
in  1784,  and  by  the  date  of  the  Union  this  industry  gave 
employment  to  13,500  persons.  By  1817  the  number  thus 
employed  was  but  12,091,  although  the  68  per  cent,  duties 
were  not  taken  off  till  1816.  By  1850  it  had  declined  to 
2,937  persons,  and  by  1861  to  2,734  persons.  In  1879  the 
number  was  1,620." 

For  many  years  Mr.  Gladstone  and  other  English  states- 
men- have  advocated  the  restoration  of  home  rule  to  Ireland. 
But  home  rule  would  avail  but  little  to  Ireland  unless  it 
were  accompanied  by  a  restoration  of  protective  duties  for 
the  benefit  of  Irish  industries,  and  this  boon  Mr.  Gladstone, 
who  is  a  free  trader,  has  never  offered. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

AN   IMPERIAL    BRITISH    ZOLLVEREIN. 

FREE  TRADE  is  not  accepted  by  all  the  British  people  as 
a  wise  economic  policy  for  their  country.  There  is  to-day 
an  aggressive  party  in  Great  Britain  which  believes  in  "fair 
trade,"  which  is  only  another  name  for  old-time  protection, 
and  there  is  a  larger  party  which  advocates  the  creation  of 
a  British  zollverein,  with  the  object  of  reviving  protective 
duties  against  all  countries  except  Great  Britain  and  her 
colonies.  But  the  attempt  to  establish  a  customs-union,  or 
zollverein,  discriminating  in  tariff  rates  against  other  coun- 
tries but  maintaining  absolute  free  trade  between  the  mem- 
bers of  the  union,  will  fail  for  many  reasons  if  it  is  earnest- 
ly pressed.  The  policy  indicated  is  urged  partly  to  appease 
British  agricultural  interests,  which  are  clamoring  loudly  for 
protection  against  foreign  competition.  It  will  fail  for  the 
following  reasons : 

It  would  be  resisted  by  many  of  the  colonies  because  it 
would  prevent  them  from  developing  their  own  industries  by 
protective  duties,  and  because  it  would  prevent  them  from 
raising  at  the  custom-house  the  revenue  that  they  would 
need.  In  Canada,  for  instance,  the  Protectionists,  or  Nation- 
alists, have  been  strong  enough  for  many  years  to  control 
the  government.  They  are  at  present  out  of  power,  but  their 
successors  have  not  proposed  free  trade  or  any  policy  ap- 
proaching it.  One  of  the  Australian  colonies,  Victoria,  is 
also  strongly  wedded  to  the  protective  policy. 


62  NOTES  AND   COMMENTS. 

Discriminating  against  other  countries  would  cause  some 
of  the  colonies,  if  not  all  of  them,  to  lose  valuable  trade  with 
those  countries,  which  might  be  expected  to  buy  sparingly 
of  British  colonial  products  if  their  own  products  were  not 
taken  in  at  least  partial  exchange.  The  ships  of  foreign 
countries  would  have  less  occasion  to  visit  colonial  ports 
than  they  now  have.  The  foreign  commerce  of  the  colonies 
with  countries  other  than  the  mother  country  would  certain- 
ly decline. 

Countries  discriminated  against  would  retaliate  by  adopt- 
ing discriminating  duties  of  their  own.  If  Canada,  as  an 
illustration,  were  to  discriminate  through  the  proposed  zollve- 
rein  against  the  United  States  and  in  favor  of  Great  Britain 
the  United  States  would  certainly  find  a  way  to  check  the 
imports  of  Canadian  products  into  United  States  markets. 
Canada  would  be  a  heavy  loser  by  the  zollverein.  She 
would  not  increase  greatly,  if  at  all,  her  exports  to  the  oth- 
er members  of  the  zollverein,  while  she  would  certainly  ex- 
port less  of  her  products  to  the  United  States,  which  now 
takes  annually  about  thirty  per  cent,  of  her  total  exports. 
Her  present  discriminating  tariff  bodes  her  no  good. 

If  the  colonies  were  compelled  by  discriminating  duties 
to  trade  more  and  more  with  Great  Britain  and  less  and  less 
with  other  countries  they  would  soon  find  themselves  at  the 
mercy  of  British  manufacturers,  who  would  have  a  virtual 
monopoly  of  their  markets  and  would  regulate  their  prices 
accordingly.  The  colonies  would  not  welcome  this  monop- 
oly, especially  as  it  would  be  accompanied  by  a  blow  at 
their  own  manufacturing  industries. 

Great  Britain  herself,  by  discriminating  in  favor  of  her 
colonies  and  against  foreign  countries,  would  not  then  any 


GREAT  BRITAIN'S  INDUSTRIAL  POLICY.  63 

more  than  now  come  anywhere  near  supplying  her  own 
wants  for  agricultural  and  other  products.  She  would  still 
be  largely  dependent  on  other  countries  for  wheat,  flour, 
beef,  pork,  petroleum,  cotton,  sugar,  and  many  other  articles 
which  are  consumed  in  the  daily  life  of  her  people  or  are 
essential  to  the  prosperity  of  her  manufacturing  industries. 
Would  her  people  be  willing  to  pay  duties  on  these  products 
which  are  now  free  and  which  her  colonies  could  not  fur- 
nish in  sufficient  quantities  to  meet  her  wants,  even  if  other 
countries  would  not  increase  their  duties  on  British  products 
entering  their  markets  ?  Would  the  workingmen  of  England, 
Scotland,  Wales,  and  Ireland  be  willing,  for  instance,  to  have 
the  cost  of  their  loaf  of -bread  coming  from  the  United 
States  increased  for  the  benefit  of  the  wheat  growers  of  In- 
dia or  the  wheat  growers  at  home?  Or  would  the  cotton 
manufacturers  of  Manchester  be  willing  to  pay  a  duty  on 
cotton  coming  from  the  United  States  that  the  growing  of 
cotton  in  India  might  be  stimulated  ?  There  would  be  both 
bread  and  cotton  riots  if  these  innovations  were  attempted. 
But,  supposing  that  the  British  people  were  willing  to  try 
the  experiment  of  imposing  duties  on  the  products  of  other 
countries  which  come  in  competition  with  the  products  of 
British  colonies,  the  increased  cost  of  food  and  of  the  raw 
materials  of  British  manufacturing  industries  would  enhance 
the  cost  of  British  manufactured  products.  The  increased 
cost  of  food  would  compel  the  payment  of  higher  wages. 
With  a  higher  labor  cost  and  a  higher  cost  of  raw  materials 
than  now  prevail,  and  the  consequent  higher  cost  of  man- 
ufactured products,  the  markets  for  these  products  would 
everywhere  be  narrowed,  even  in  the  colonies.  British  man- 
ufacturers would  surely  be  losers  by  a  discriminating  policy. 


64  NOTES  AND  COMMENTS. 

The  fact  that  land  in  the  British  Islands  is  owned  by  the 
aristocratic  class  and  can  not  to  any  considerable  extent  be 
purchased  by  any  other  class  will  of  itself  prevent  the  adop- 
tion of  a  discriminating  policy  for  the  benefit  of  British  ag- 
ricultural interests,  notwithstanding  the  undoubted  fact  that 
the  tenant  farmers  and  the  farm  laborers  of  Great  Britain 
are  richly  deserving  of  sympathy  and  of  protection  against 
foreign  competition.  Why  should  the  poor  men  of  England, 
Scotland,  Ireland,  and  Wales  distress  themselves  for  the  ben- 
efit of  the  landed  aristocracy?  The  aristocratic  ownership 
of  land  in  Great  Britain  constitutes,  indeed,  the  weakest 
feature  of  the  whole  scheme  to  revive  the  protective  policy 
in  that  country,  either  through  a  zollverein  or  otherwise. 

Lastly,  the  zollverein  project  proposes  in  effect  the  aban- 
donment of  British  free  trade  for  the  benefit  primarily  of 
British  agriculture  but  also  in  the  hope  that  other  British 
industries  would  be  benefited.  But  even  if  Great  Britain 
should  now  abandon  her  free  trade  policy  she  would  gain 
nothing.  It  is  too  late  for  her  to  retrace  the  steps  by  which 
fifty  years  ago  she  abandoned  her  agriculture  to  its  fate  that 
she  might  manufacture  for  all  the  world  cotton  and  woolen 
goods,  iron  and  steel,  and  other  products  of  her  factories  and 
workshops.  She  should  have  adhered  to  a  policy  of  moder- 
ate protection  for  both  her  agriculture  and  her  manufac- 
tures, developing  both  side  by  side  and  neither  at  the  ex- 
pense of  the  other.  She  chose  the  unwise  part.  Her  agri- 
culture is  now  and  long  has  been  greatly  depressed,  and  at 
last  her  manufacturing  supremacy  is  successfully  assailed  in 
every  branch  by  countries  which,  in  self-defense  against  her 
aggressive  policy,  were  compelled  to  develop  their  own  in- 
dustrial resources  by  protective  tariffs. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

BRITISH   STEAMSHIP   SUBSIDIES. 

THE  protective  policy  is  still  retained  in  those  acts  of  the 
British  Parliament  which  every  year  grant  large  subsidies 
to  British  steamship  companies,  enabling  them  to  carry  the 
manufactures  of  Great  Britain  to  every  port  in  the  world  in 
competition  with  other  nations.  These  subsidies  are  attend- 
ed with  many  important  benefits  to  British  trade. 

In  1871  Judge  Kelley  said :  "  England's  enormous  annual 
subsidies  to  steamship  companies  are  part  of  an  ingenious 
system  of  protection  by  which  she  hopes  to  maintain  a  mo- 
nopoly of  shipbuilding  and  the  carrying  trade.  She  thus 
pays  part  of  the  freight  on  foreign  raw  materials  used  by 
her  manufacturers  and  the  fabrics  and  wares  they  export. 
These  subsidies  amounted  last  year,  as  was  stated  by  the 
Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer  in  his  speech  of  April  20, 1871, 
when  presenting  to  Parliament  his  budget  for  this  year,  to 
£1,225,000,  or  over  $6,000,000." 

In  1885  John  Roach  said  that  from  1827  to  1840  Eng- 
land's carrying  trade  went  from  bad  to  worse,  and  that  in 
1837  "  she  began  the  policy  of  subsidy,  straight-out  subsidy. 
Samuel  Cunard  offered  in  1840  to  build  a  line  of  mail  steam- 
ships for  the  North  Atlantic,  and  his  offer  was  at  once  ac- 
cepted." Mr.  Roach  then  states  that  Mr.  Cunard  built  four 
side-wheel  ocean  steamers,  and  that  he  "got  his  contract  of 
$413,000  the  first  year,  and  this  was  increased  to  $550,000 
the  next  year,  or  70  per  cent,  per  annum  on  the  whole  cost 


66  NOTES  AND   COMMENTS. 

of  the  ships.  This  was  a  subsidy,  pure  and  simple,  given  to 
Mr.  Cunard  to  enable  him  to  establish  and  maintain  his  line, 
and  increased  that  he  might  run  his  line  not  only  without 
loss  but  at  a  profit." 

Mr.  Eoach  further  said  in  1885  :  "  In  a  report  of  the 
Postmaster  General,  dated  July  20,  1870,  I  find  this  signifi- 
cant passage :  '  By  the  terms  of  the  contract  concluded  with 
the  Peninsular  and  Oriental  Steam  Navigation  Company  on 
the  19th  of  November,  1867,  the  subsidy  to  be  paid  the  com- 
pany is  set  down  at  £400,000  ($2,000,000)  a  year,  with  a 
stipulation,  on  the  one  hand,  that  whenever  the  annual  in- 
come of  the  company  from  all  sources  does  not  admit  of  the 
payment  of  a  dividend  of  8  per  cent,  on  the  capital  employ- 
ed the  subsidy  shall  be  increased  by  so  much — subject  to  a 
limit,  of  £100,000  ($500,000)— as  is  required  to  make  up 
such  a  dividend.'  Here  is  not  only  a  subsidy  but  a  govern- 
ment guarantee  of  an  8  per  cent,  dividend  to  the  company's 
stockholders." 

The  Glasgow  Herald  for  September  24, 1892,  contains  an 
elaborate  article  on  "  the  balance-sheet  of  an  Atlantic  liner," 
in  which,  after  summing  up  the  cost  of  running  these  large 
vessels  and  the  income  from  freight  and  passengers,  the  writ- 
er admits  in  the  following  words  the  direct  payment  of  sub- 
sidies: "Another  source  of  income  in  these  large  steamers  is 
the  cruiser  subvention  from  the  Admiralty.  This  equals  from 
£17,000  to  £18,000  per  annum.  For  this  sum  the  compa- 
nies are  prepared  on  an  outbreak  of  war  to  hand  over  their 
ships  to  act  as  armed  cruisers,  for  which  of  course  they  would 
then  be  handsomely  paid.  The  Teutonic  and  Majestic  have 
guns  to  be  in  readiness,  and  on  high  occasions  these  have  been 
mounted.  Then,  again,  there  is  the  income  from  the  mails." 


GREAT  BRITAIN'S  INDUSTRIAL  POLICY.  67 

The  same  paper  for  December  17,  1894,  said :  "  In  1840 
the  Cunard  Line,  or,  as  it  was  then  styled,  the  British  and 
North  American  Royal  Mail  Steam  Packet  Company,  was 
formed.  It  was  to  conduct  a  fortnightly  steam  mail  service 
between  Liverpool,  Halifax,  and  Boston,  and  the  contract 
under  which  it  served  was  for  seven  years.  Seven  years 
later  the  expansion  of  the  trade  with  the  States  forced  the 
British  Government  to  double  the  mail  service,  and  with  its 
subsidy  increased  from  £81,000  to  £173,340  per  annum  the 
Cunard  Company  undertook  the  work.  Since  then  the  serv- 
ice has,  with  the  exception  of  a  momentary  break  in  1889, 
been  continuous." 

In  commenting  on  the  passage  by  Congress  in  1891  of  the 
Postal  Subsidy  bill  the  London  Engineering  for  March  13, 
1891,  says  :  "The  Senate  and  the  House  of  Representatives, 
which  constitute  the  legislative  houses  of  America,  have 
passed  what  is  called  the  Postal  Subsidy  bill,  which  may  be 
more  accurately  described  as  a  bill  to  subsidize  American- 
built  steamers.  Originally  there  were  two  bills  before  the 
Legislature,  one  of  which  gave  bounties  for  shipbuilding  and 
the  other  subsidies  for  the  carrying  of  mails.  The  subsidy 
was  based  on  the  mile  run  of  the  steamers,  and  it  differs 
from  that  paid  by  this  country  in  respect  that  the  vessel  must 
be  of  American  build." 

We  could  cite  other  proofs  of  the  practice  of  the  British 
Government  to  subsidize  its  steamship  lines.  The  subsidies 
above  referred  to  were  paid  for  mail  service,  these  subsidies 
being  largely  repaid  by  the  mail  receipts  on  foreign  and  co- 
lonial postage.  This  superior  mail  service  helps  British  trade 
in  various  ways,  in  addition  to  furnishing  quick  transporta- 
tion for  the  products  of  British  workshops. 


68  NOTES  AND  COMMENTS. 

Hon.  William  F.  Prosser  explains  as  follows  in  The  Unit- 
ed Service  Magazine  for  April,  1896,  the  benefits  which  are 
thus  reaped  by  British  trade  :  "  The  policy  of  Great  Britain 
has  not  only  enabled  her  to  increase  her  shipping  industries 
and  operations  immensely,  but,  as  she  thus  secures  control 
of  the  mail  service,  she,  at  the  same  time,  largely  increases 
her  mercantile  and  banking  business,  because  merchants  all 
over  the  world  prefer  to  do  their  trading  where  the  mail  fa- 
cilities are  of  the  best  character.  Her  steamers  everywhere 
make  it  a  point  to  accommodate  their  arrivals  and  depar- 
tures to  the  convenience  of  the  mail  service.  It  is  not  unu- 
sual for  English  steamers  to  wait  a  day  or  two  in  foreign 
ports  for  the  mails  in  order  that  British  merchants  may  get 
the  benefit  of  mercantile  orders." 

Germany,  France,  and  Italy  have  copied  Great  Britain's 
example  in  subsidizing  mail  steamship  companies,  and  our 
own  country  has  recently  timidly  entered  upon  a  similar  pol- 
icy. We  commend  most  earnestly  this  British  policy.  This 
country  needs  subsidized  steamship  lines  to  increase  its  ex- 
port trade  a  hundred  times  more  than  it  needs  reciprocity 
treaties.  But  this  British  policy  is  not  a  free  trade  policy, 
but  a  policy  of  protection.  Great  Britain  can  not  with  any 
show  of  consistency  pretend  that  she  has  abandoned  the  pro- 
tective policy  so  long  as  she  pays  large  subsidies  annually 
to  her  mail  steamship  companies  for  the  extension,  among 
other  things,  of  British  trade. 

Colonel  Prosser  gives  the  following  list  of  British  and 
Continental  steamship  companies,  with  the  number  of  their 
steamers,  which  are  subsidized  to  a  greater  or  less  extent, 
the  aggregate  amounting  to  millions  of  dollars  annually. 
The  British  India  Company,  103  steamers ;  Peninsular  and 


GREAT  BRITAIN'S  INDUSTRIAL  POLICY.  69 

Oriental,  36  steamers ;  Messageries  Maritimes,  61  steamers ; 
North  German  Lloyd's,  66  steamers ;  Navigationze  Gener- 
ale,  106  steamers ;  Compagnie  Generale  Transatlantique,  66 
steamers  ;  Hamburg- America,  86  steamers  ;  Wilson  Line,  86 
steamers ;  Austrian  Lloyd's,  73  steamers ;  White  Star  Line, 
20  steamers ;  Cunard  Line,  26  steamers.  The  United  States 
pays  in  1897  a  mail  subsidy  to  four  Atlantic  steamships,  the 
New  York,  Paris,  St.  Paul,  and  St.  Louis,  of  the  American 
Line,  this  subsidy  having  been  provided  for  in  the  Postal 
Subsidy  bill  already  referred  to. 

There  is  a  Bureau  of  American  Republics  at  Washington, 
and  much  is  said  in  its  publications  and  elsewhere  about  the 
necessity  of  extending  our  Jtrade  with  all  Central  and  South 
American  countries,  but  not  one  vessel  has  been  subsidized 
by  our  Government  to  carry  even  the  mails  to  these  coun- 
tries. If  we  had  adopted  the  policy  of  subsidizing  mail 
steamship  lines  between  our  principal  ports  and  the  princi- 
pal ports  of  Central  and  South  America  our  export  trade  to 
those  countries  would  now  rapidly  increase.  Trade  would 
follow  the  flag.  But  to-day,  when  we  sell  a  steel  bridge  to 
one  of  our  South  American  neighbors,  it  must  first  be  sent 
to  Liverpool  and  thence  to  its  destination.  The  missing  link 
in  our  export  trade  of  all  kinds  is  direct  steam  communica- 
tion with  all  parts  of  the  world.  With  this  link  supplied 
there  would  be  no  temptation  to  compromise  our  protective 
tariff  professions  or  to  annoy  friendly  nations  by  injecting 
into  our  tariff  legislation  the  thoroughly  British  policy  of 
commercial  treaties  and  so-called  reciprocity.  Our  low  prices 
and  the  excellent  quality  of  our  products  would  do  the  rest. 
They  are  accomplishing  wonders  as  things  are. 


CHAPTER   IX. 

TAKIFF   LEGISLATION  FEOM  WASHINGTON  TO  McKINLEY. 

IN  the  early  days  of  the  great  American  Kepublic  the 
principle  of  protection  to  home  industry  was  fully  recog- 
nized. Nearly  all  the  great  men  who  aided  in  securing  our 
political  independence  were  protectionists.  Washington,  Ad- 
ams, Jefferson,  Madison,  Hamilton,  Franklin,  and  others  ad- 
vocated the  protective  policy  with  more  or  less  earnestness. 
The  necessity  of  securing  greatly  needed  protection  for  our 
manufacturing  industries  and  thereby  promoting  "  the  gen- 
eral welfare  "  was  one  of  the  principal  reasons  for  the  adop- 
tion of  the  Constitution  of  1787,  which  established  "  a  more 
perfect  Union  "  than  had  existed  under  the  Articles  of  Con- 
federation. In  an  address  to  the  citizens  of  Buffalo,  New 
York,  in  June,  1833,  Daniel  Webster  said :  "  The  protection 
of  American  labor  against  the  injurious  competition  of  for- 
eign labor,  so  far  at  least  as  respects  general  handicraft  pro? 
ductions,  is  known  historically  to  have  been  one  end  design- 
ed to  be  obtained  by  establishing  the  Constitution." 

The  first  petition  that  was  presented  to  the  First  Congress, 
in  March,  1789,  before  Washington's  inauguration,  emanated 
from  over  seven  hundred  mechanics  and  other  citizens  of 
"  the  town  of  Baltimore,"  who  prayed  that  Congress  would 
render  the  country  "  independent  in  fact  as  well  as  in 
name"  by  imposing  protective  duties  on  foreign  manufac- 
tures. Other  petitions  of  like  character  were  presented  from 
citizens  of  Boston,  New  York,  Philadelphia,  Charleston,  and 


TARIFF  LEGISLATION  AT  HOME.  71 

other  places.  Within  two  days  after  the  Presidential  vote 
was  counted  Mr.  Madison  introduced  in  the  House  of  Rep- 
resentatives a  bill  embodying  the  views  of  the  petitioners. 
That  bill  became  a  law;  it  was  our  first  protective  tariff; 
and  it  was  the  first  act  of  general  legislation  passed  under 
the  new  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  As  stated  in  its 
preamble  it  was  enacted  because  it  was  "necessary  for  the 
support  of  the  Government,  for  the  discharge  of  the  debts  of 
the  United  States,  and  the  encouragement  and  protection  of 
manufactures"  It  became  a  law  by  the  signature  of  Wash- 
ington on  the  4th  day  of  July,  1789. 

The  policy  of  protection  which  was  embodied  hi  the  tariff 
act  of  1789  was  continued  in  subsequent  tariff  legislation. 
The  fact  is  worthy  of  note  that  a  clause  in  one  of  the  earliest 
of  our  tariffs  provided  a  duty  of  three  cents  a  pound  on  raw 
cotton  for  the  protection  of  our  new  cotton-growing  industry. 
On  December  5, 1791,  Alexander  Hamilton,  the  Secretary  of 
the  Treasury,  presented  a  report  to  Congress  which  contain- 
ed a  plea  for  protection  to  American  industry  which  is  yet 
regarded  as  the  most  philosophical  and  statesmanlike  argu- 
ment in  behalf  of  the  protective  policy  that  has  ever  ema- 
nated from  the  pen  of  an  American  writer.  Senator  John 
P.  Jones,  of  Nevada,  is  entitled  to  the  thanks  of  the  present 
generation  of  American  protectionists  for  presenting  in  the 
Senate  of  the  United  States  on  September  10, 1890,  the  most 
philosophical  argument  in  behalf  of  the  same  policy  that 
has  appeared  since  Hamilton's  report.  Both  arguments  are 
masterpieces. 

Mr.  Elaine  says  that  "  important  and  radical  additions  to 
the  revenue  system  promptly  followed  Mr.  Hamilton's  recom- 
mendations. From  that  time  onward,  for  a  period  of  more 


72  NOTES  AND   COMMENTS. 

than  twenty  years,  additional  tariff  laws  were  passed  by  each 
succeeding  Congress,  modifying  and  generally  increasing  the 
rate  of  duties  first  imposed  and  adding  many  new  articles  to 
the  dutiable  list." 

Although  intended  to  be  fully  protective  of  our  infant 
manufactures  the  early  tariff  acts  were  in  fact  only  slightly 
so.  Duties  generally  did  not  range  above  15  per  cent.  The 
disparity  between  our  people  and  those  of  Europe  in  capital 
and  skill  and  other  resources  was  too  great  to  be  overcome  by 
the  low  duties  that  were  imposed.  England  supplied  us  with 
most  of  our  manufactured  goods,  and  to  repress  our  rising 
industries  she  offered  many  of  these  goods  at  unremunerative 
prices.  "An  immense  quantity  of  merchandise  was  introduc- 
ed into  the  country.  English  goods  were  sold  at  lower  rates 
in  our  maritime  cities  than  at  Liverpool  or  London."  We 
were  still  the  commercial  colony  of  Great  Britain. 

In  addition  to  throwing  her  cheap  goods  upon  our  mar- 
kets Great  Britain  continued  the  policy  she  had  adopted  be- 
fore the  Revolution  of  imposing  severe  restrictions  upon  the 
exportation  of  machines  and  tools  used  in  manufactures  and 
upon  the  emigration  of  her  skilled  workmen.  Heavy  penal- 
ties were  enforced  for  "  the  enticing  of  artificers  or  workmen 
in  the  iron  and  steel  manufactures  out  of  the  kingdom  and 
the  exportation  of  any  tools  used  in  these  branches  to  any 
place  beyond  the  seas."  Other  industries  were  dealt  with  in 
like  manner. 

At  the  beginning  of  our  last  war  with  Great  Britain,  in 
1812,  all  duties  were  doubled,  with  the  twofold  purpose  of 
increasing  the  revenues  and  stimulating  manufactures.  This 
legislation  remained  unaltered  until  1816,  and  while  it  was  in 
force  every  existing  industry  in  the  country  was  quickened 


TARIFF  LEGISLATION  AT  HOME.  73 

into  new  life  and  many  new  industries  were  created.  There 
was  indeed  great  need  of  an  industrial  awakening.  "  The 
war  of  1812  found  us  without  manufactures  and  without 
machinery.  Our  people  were  without  the  means  of  produc- 
ing clothing  for  their  armies  or  the  material  of  war."  But 
in  1816  duties  were  generally  reduced,  although  the  tariff  of 
that  year  was  intended  to  aiford  ample  protection.  It  is  a 
strange  coincidence  that  it  was  in  this  very  year  that  Lord 
Brougham  declared  that  "  it  was  Well  worth  while  to  incur 
a  loss  upon  the  first  exportation,  in  order  by  the  glut  to 
stifle  in  the  cradle  those  rising  manufactures  in  the  United 
States  which  the  war  has  forced  into  existence  contrary  to 
the  natural  course  of  things." 

From  1816  to  1824  none  of  our  manufacturing  industries 
were  sufficiently  protected,  and  British  manufacturers  held 
almost  complete  possession  of  our  markets.  Again  we  were 
the  commercial  colony  of  Great  Britain.  Inadequate  duties 
favored  her  ambition,  but  she  had  other  advantages  in  com- 
peting with  our  infant  manufactures  besides  the  encourage- 
ment extended  to  her  by  our  timid  tariff  legislation.  In 
May,  1868,  The  League,  a  newspaper  published  in  New  York, 
and  the  organ  at  that  time  of  American  free  traders,  re- 
ferring to  British  manufactures  from  1816  to  1824,  said 
that  among  their  advantages  was  "  the  great  advantage  of 
being  already  established,  with  machinery  all  built,  trade  all 
regulated,  and  in  the  midst  of  a  superabundant  supply  of 
labor,  which  had  no  competing  opening,  and  which  could 
therefore  be  had  for  the  asking,  at  the  loivest  wages  an  which 
people  could  live" 

The  period  intervening  between  the  close  of  the  last  war 
with  Great  Britain  and  the  year  1824  is  frequently  referred 


74  NOTES  AND   COMMENTS. 

to  as  "  the  era  of  good  feeling  "  in  our  political  history,  but 
it  was  an  era  of  discouragement  and  disaster  in  our  indus- 
trial history.  The  unchecked  importation  of  foreign  goods 
was  the  main  cause  of  the  industrial  depression  and  financial 
ruin  which  marked  that  gloomy  period.  In  Bishop's  History 
of  American  Manufactures  we  find  a  melancholy  picture  of 
the  condition  of  the  country  in  1819.  This  excellent  author- 
ity says :  "  A  general  paralysis  now  fell  upon  all  branches  of 
industry.  The  distress  became  more  general  and  severe  than 
had  ever  been  known,  and  but  little  alleviation  was  experi- 
enced for  several  years  to  come.  The  banks  suffered  from 
lack  of  specie.  Bankruptcies  overtook  the  mercantile  and 
shipping  interests,  whose  merchandise  lay  on  their  hands,  and 
whose  ships  could  neither  be  employed  nor  sold  save  at  ruin- 
ous losses.  Rents  and  the  value  of  all  real  estate  were  enor- 
mously depreciated.  Farms  were  mortgaged  or  sold  at  one- 
half  and  one-third  their  value.  Factories  and  workshops 
were  everywhere  closed.  Manufacturers  were  forced  to  aban- 
don extensive  and  flourishing  establishments,  reared  as  if  by 
magic  in  the  last  few  years,  and  with  their  operatives  and 
multitudes  of  handicraft  workmen  entered  into  competition 
with  the  cultivators  of  the  soil  and  swelled  the  products  of 
agricultural  labor,  for  which  there  was  no  longer  a  market." 
On  the  llth  of  February,  1824,  in  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives, the  effect  of  the  tariff  of  1816  upon  the  manufac- 
tures of  the  country  was  stated  as  follows  by  Mr.  Tod,  of 
Pennsylvania  :  "  The  tariff  of  1816  had  been  inadequate. 
Under  it  the  newly-erected  manufactures  of  earthenware  had 
been  the  first  to  disappear.  They  and  their  workmen  were 
no  more  talked  of  than  if  they  had  never  existed.  In  the 
same  way  went  the  most  of  our  glass  factories,  our  manu- 


TARIFF  LEGISLATION  AT  HOME.  75 

factures  of  white  and  black  lead,  our  woolens,  our  hemp. 
Domestic  iron  had  lingered  awhile  longer,  and  still  held  a 
feeble  existence,  dwindling  every  year,  and  gradually  sinking 
under  foreign  importations.  All  the  devastations  and  losses 
of  the  war  had  been  nothing  compared  with  the  devastations 
and  losses  of  manufacturing  capital  under  the  tariff  of  1816." 

On  the  28th  of  February,  1824,  James  Buchanan,  who 
was  then  a  Representative  in  Congress  from  Pennsylvania, 
thus  alluded  to  the  prostrated  condition  of  the  iron  industry 
in  those  eastern  districts  of  his  State  which  were  open  to 
foreign  competition  :  "  Although  that  portion  of  Pennsylvania 
abounds  with  ore,  with  wood,  and  with  water  power,  yet  its 
manufactories  generally  iave  sunk  into  ruin  and  exist  only 
as  standing  monuments  of  the  false  policy  of  the  Govern- 
ment. The  manufacturers  and  their  laborers  have  both  been 
thrown  out  of  employment  and  the  neighboring  farmer  is 
without  a  market."  It  was  in  this  year  that  General  Jack- 
son wrote  his  celebrated  letter  to  Dr.  Coleman  advocating 
the  continuance  and  enlargement  of  the  protective  policy. 
General  Jackson  had  previously  written  to  General  Robert 
Patterson,  of  Philadelphia,  on  May  17,  1823,  as  follows : 
"Upon  the  success  of  our  manufactures,  as  the  handmaid  of 
agriculture  and  commerce,  depends  in  a  great  measure  the 
independence  of  our  country." 

In  a  memorable  speech  in  the  Senate  in  1832  Henry  Clay 
thus  characterized  the  period  between  1816  and  1824 :  "  If 
I  were  to  select  any  term  of  seven  years  since  the  adoption 
of  the  present  Constitution  which  exhibited  a  scene  of  the 
most  widespread  dismay  and  desolation  it  would  be  exactly 
that  term  of  seven  years  which  immediately  preceded  the  es- 
tablishment of  the  tariff  of  1824." 


76  NOTES  AND  COMMENTS. 

The  tariff  of  1824  gave  a  new  impetus  to  enterprise  and 
greatly  promoted  the  general  prosperity.  It  was  the  first 
thoroughly  protective  tariff  enacted  by  Congress  in  a  time  of 
peace.  In  1828  the  duties  on  iron  and  steel,  carpets,  blan- 
kets, other  woolen  goods,  edged  tools,  hemp,  flax,  and  many 
other  articles  were  still  further  increased.  The  Legislature  of 
New  York  this  year,  by  an  almost  unanimous  vote,  passed 
resolutions  recommending  iron  to  the  protection  of  Congress. 

The  beneficial  effects  of  the  protective  tariffs  of  1824  and 
1828  are  stated  in  the  following  extract  from  the  speech  of 
Mr.  Clay,  already  quoted :  "  If  the  term  of  seven  years  were 
to  be  selected  of  the  greatest  prosperity  which  this  people 
have  enjoyed  since  the  establishment  of  their  present  Consti- 
tution it  would  be  exactly  that  period  of  seven  years  which 
immediately  followed  the  passage  of  the  tariff  of  1824.  This 
transformation  of  the  condition  of  the  country  from  gloom 
and  distress  to  brightness  and  prosperity  has  been  mainly  the 
work  of  American  legislation  fostering  American  industry,  in- 
stead of  allowing  it  to  be  controlled  by  foreign  legislation 
cherishing  foreign  industry." 

The  general  tariff  act  of  1832  made  some  changes  in  du- 
ties, but  its  principal  purpose  was  to  reaffirm  the  policy  of 
protection  in  the  most  positive  terms.  In  discussing  the  bill 
in  the  House  of  Representatives  Mr.  Crawford  and  Mr. 
Stewart,  of  Pennsylvania,  bore  additional  testimony  to  the 
good  results  which  had  followed  the  passage  of  the  acts  of 
1824  and  1828.  Mr.  Crawford  said:  "Manufactories  have 
sprung  up  throughout  the  country,  not  in  one  town,  not  in 
one  district,  but  everywhere,  and,  like  the  dews  and  rains 
and  sunshine  from  heaven,  stimulating  everything  and  fur- 
nishing food  for  everybody."  Mr.  Stewart  said  that  the 


TARIFF  LEGISLATION  AT  HOME.  77 

country  "  had  risen  to  its  present  high  and  palmy  state  of 
public  prosperity  "  under  the  protective  system — "  a  system 
which  has  vindicated  its  adoption  by  all  its  fruits."  Mr. 
Davis,  of  Massachusetts,  referring  to  the  tariff  legislation  of 
the  First  Congress,  also  said  :  "  The  act  which  laid  the 
foundation  of  the  Great  American  policy  infused  the  vital 
principle  into  the  drooping,  disheartened  spirits  of  all  labor- 
ers. It  restored  a  discontented  community  to  tranquillity, 
and  caused  peace  and  happiness  to  pervade  this  widespread 
country." 

But,  in  1833,  influenced  purely  by  political  considerations 
growing  out  of  Southern  hostility  to  the  protective  policy, 
Congress  exchanged  thie*  policy  for  one  which  provided  for  a 
gradual  reduction  of  duties  on  foreign  imports  from  and  after 
December  31,  1833,  to  continue  until  December  31,  1842, 
after  which  date  they  should  be  succeeded  by  a  uniform 
duty  of  twenty  per  cent.  The  tariff  of  1833  is  known  as  the 
Henry  Clay  compromise  tariff.  Henry  Clay  once  told  a 
Pennsylvania  iron  manufacturer  who  is  still  living  that  the 
tariff  of  1833  was  "  a  mistake."  It  is  a  singular  fact  that 
the  gradual  abandonment  of  protective  duties  which  was 
provided  for  in  the  tariff  of  1833  did  not  very  greatly  differ 
in  one  particular  from  the  provision  in  the  Act  of  Union  of 
1801  abolishing  Irish  independence,  which  decreed  that  all 
protective  duties  on  Irish  manufactures  should  be  gradually 
reduced  and  finally  cease  at  the  end  of  certain  specified 
years  in  the  near  future.  Under  the  operation  of  the  com- 
promise tariff  of  1833  imports  steadily  increased  and  all  our 
industries  were  greatly  prostrated. 

The  disastrous  consequences  of  the  tariff  of  1833  culmi- 
nated in  1837  in  one  of  the  severest  financial  panics  in  our 


78  NOTES  AND    COMMENTS. 

history,  and  the  five  years  immediately  following  that  event 
were  indeed  hard  times  for  the  American  farmer  and  work- 
ingman.  The  reader  of  advanced  years  will  remember  that 
in  those  years  the  farmer  sold  his  corn  and  apples  and  pota- 
toes for  twelve  and  a  half  cents  a  bushel,  and  that  a  cow 
and  calf  in  the  spring  of  the  year  would  bring  only  seven 
or  eight  dollars.  Agricultural  products  were  rarely  sold  for 
cash,  but  were  taken  to  the  country  stores  and  exchanged  for 
English  axes,  hatchets,  saws,  calicoes,  and  other  articles  of 
foreign  manufacture,  for  which  exorbitant  prices  were  charg- 
ed. Turnpike  companies,  small  municipalities,  and  other  em- 
ployers of  labor  met  their  obligations  with  printed  due-bills, 
or  "  scrip,"  which  passed  into  general  circulation.  Domestic 
manufacturers  very  generally  put  out  their  fires,  and  their 
foreign  competitors  again  possessed  the  American  market. 
Labor  was  nowhere  in  demand.  It  was  a  period  of  com- 
plete prostration  and  widespread  disaster.  The  Treasury  of 
the  United  States  was  almost  bankrupted. 

The  tariff  of  1842  again  placed  the  policy  of  protection  in 
the  ascendant,  and  while  it  lasted  business  revived  and  the 
country  prospered.  The  Treasury  was  replenished.  In  1846 
duties  were  again  reduced  by  a  tariff  act  framed  by  Robert 
J.  Walker,  President  Folk's  Secretary  of  the  Treasury.  Mr. 
Polk  had  been  elected  to  the  Presidency  in  1844  upon  the 
deceptive  plea  that  he  "  was  as  good  a  tariff  man  as  Henry 
Clay."  Pennsylvania  was  carried  for  him  with  the  shibbo- 
leth, "Polk,  Dallas,  and  Shunk,  and  the  tariff  of  1842." 
Notwithstanding  the  stimulating  effects  produced  by  the 
Irish  famine,  the  discovery  of  gold  in  California,  and  the 
Crimean  war  the  country  did  not  prosper  under  the  tariff  of 
1846.  Agriculture  flourished  only  while  the  Irish  famine 


TARIFF  LEGISLATION  AT  HOME.  79 

and  the  Crimean  war  lasted,  and  the  gold  of  California  was 
exported  to  pay  for  the  products  of  European  workshops. 
Our  iron  industry,  which  had  been  greatly  stimulated  under 
the  tariff  of  1842,  met  with  disastrous  reverses.  The  tariff 
of  1846  was  a  tariff  for  revenue  only.  The  prevailing  rate 
was  30  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 

With  a  strange  fatuity  Congress  adopted  in  1857  still  fur- 
ther modifications  of  the  tariff  in  the  interest  of  foreign  man- 
ufacturers and  the  panic  of  that  year  was  one  of  the  conse- 
quences. The  legislation  of  1857  is  known  as  the  James 
Guthrie  tariff.  The  prevailing  rate  was  24  per  cent,  ad  va- 
lorem. The  years  1857,  1858,  1859,  and  1860  were  four  of 
the  most  discouraging  yeilfs  in  our  industrial  history.  Many 
banks  and  manufacturing  companies  failed.  A  leading  iron 
manufacturing  firm  in  Pennsylvania  paid  its  workmen  in 
"  scrip,"  or  store  orders,  during  the  whole  four  years.  The 
Treasury  of  the  United  States  also  suffered  from  insufficient 
revenue,  and  the  Government  was  compelled  in  a  time  of 
peace  to  borrow  money  to  meet  its  ordinary  expenses. 

So  prostrated  had  the  country  become  in  consequence  of 
the  legislation  of  1846  and  1857  that  a  return  to  the  policy 
of  generous  protection  was  rendered  absolutely  necessary, 
and  this  was  accomplished  by  the  passage  in  1861  of  the 
Morrill  tariff  bill.  This  bill  was  not  a  war  measure,  as  has 
been  erroneously  inferred  from  its  date.  It  was  reported 
to  the  House  of  Representatives  on  March  12,  1860,  and  it 
passed  that  body  on  May  10.  It  passed  the  Senate  on  Feb- 
ruary 27,  1861,  and  it  was  approved  by  President  Buchan- 
an on  March  2.  It  took  effect  on  April  1.  The  new  tariff 
formed  the  first  in  an  unbroken  series  of  protective  tariff 
acts  extending  over  a  long  period  and  ending  with  the  Me- 


80  NOTES  AND   COMMENTS. 

Kinley  tariff  of  1890.  To  the  wisdom  which  inspired  and 
maintained  these  enactments  do  we  owe  the  wonderful  pros- 
perity of  the  country  from  1861  to  1893 — prosperity  achiev- 
ed despite  the  destruction  occasioned  by  a  great  civil  war 
and  despite  the  hardships  attending  the  shrinkage  of  values 
and  the  checking  of  all  enterprise  which  followed  the  Jay 
Cooke  panic  of  September  18,  1873. 

For  the  first  time  in  its  history  there  was  inserted  in  the 
platform  of  the  Republican  party  in  1860  a  resolution  ap- 
proving the  protective  policy,  and  this  indorsement  of  that 
policy  aided  greatly  in  securing  Abraham  Lincoln's  election 
to  the  Presidency  in  that  year.  It  secured  to  him  the  elec- 
toral vote  of  Pennsylvania.  The  resolution  was  as  follows : 
"  That,  while  providing  revenue  for  the  support  of  the  Gen- 
eral Government  by  duties  upon  imports,  sound  policy  re- 
quires such  an  adjustment  of  these  imposts  as  to  encourage 
the  development  of  the  industrial  interests  of  the  whole 
country ;  and  we  commend  that  policy  of  national  exchanges 
which  secures  to  the  workingmen  liberal  wages,  to  agricul- 
ture remunerative  prices,  to  mechanics  and  manufacturers 
an  adequate  reward  for  their  skill,  labor,  and  enterprise,  and 
to  the  nation  commercial  prosperity  and  independence."  Mr. 
Lincoln  was  himself  a  firm  believer  in  the  protective  policy. 
On  October  11,  1859,  he  wrote  to  Edward  Wallace :  "  I  was 
an  old  Henry  Clay  Tariff  Whig.  In  old  times  I  made  more 
speeches  on  that  subject  than  any  other.  I  have  not  since 
changed  my  views." 

Soon  after  the  second  elevation  of  Mr.  Cleveland  to  the 
Presidency,  in  1893,  there  ensued  a  great  panic,  followed  by 
a  great  depression  in  all  industrial  enterprises,  caused  by  a 
lack  of  confidence  by  business  men  in  the  financial  situation 


TARIFF  LEGISLATION  AT  HOME.  81 

and  by  the  general  expectation  that  the  tariff  would  again 
be  revised  in  the  interest  of  foreign  manufacturers,  both  the 
legislative  and  executive  branches  of  the  Government  hav- 
ing again  passed  into  the  hands  of  the  advocates  of  a  tariff 
for  revenue  only.  The  financial  and  industrial  depression  of 
1893  and  1894  was  very  great.  Many  banks  and  manufac- 
turing companies  failed.  Wages  were  reduced  and  many 
workingmen  were  thrown  out  of  employment.  There  was 
never  in  this  country  such  a  summer  of  depression  and 
prostration  as  that  of  1893.  On  November  1, 1893,  the  sil- 
ver-purchase provision  of  the  Sherman  act  of  1890  was  re- 
pealed, but  an  improvement  in  business  did  not  follow  this 
legislation.  Many  persorfs  had  predicted  a  different  result. 

The  expected  revision  of  the  tariff  happened  in  1894,  when 
the  Wilson  tariff  bill,  the  original  of  which  was  modeled  af- 
ter the  Walker  tariff  of  1846,  became  a  law  on  August  28th. 
The  enactment  of  the  Wilson  tariff  in  1894  was  followed  by 
a  partial  return  of  business  confidence  and  by  a  revival  in 
1895  of  activity  in  the  iron  trade  and  in  some  other  indus- 
tries, due  partly  to  the  fact  that  the  question  of  tariff  revision 
had  been  settled,  even  if  wrongly  settled,  and  partly  to  the 
fact  that  the  financial  tension  caused  by  the  panic  had  been 
largely  relieved.  But  there  was  no  general  revival  of  pros- 
perity, and  in  a  few  months,  beginning  with  the  early  part 
of  1896,  all  business  was  as  bad  as  it  had  been  in  1893  and 
1894.  Wages  were  further  reduced.  Duties  in  the  Wilson 
tariff  were,  as  a  rule,  too  low  to  give  needed  encouragement 
and  protection  to  domestic  industries.  This  depressing  and 
discouraging  condition  of  affairs  continued  throughout  all 
of  1896  and  in  1897  down  to  the  enactment  of  an  entirely 
new  tariff,  known  as  the  Dingley  tariff,  which  was  framed 


82  NOTES  AND  COMMENTS. 

wholly  on  protectionist  lines,  and  which  became  a  law  on 
July  24th  of  the  last  named  year.  The  depression  was  in- 
tensified in  1896  by  the  Democratic  and  Populistic  upris- 
ing of  that  year  in  favor  of  the  free  coinage  of  silver  and 
by  the  widespread  manifestations  of  discontent  with  the  low 
prices  of  agricultural  products  and  with  other  undesirable 
conditions,  for  which  it  was  declared  the  free  coinage  of  sil- 
ver would  be  a  sure  remedy.  Fortunately  this  view  did  not 
prevail  at  the  Presidential  and  Congressional  elections  of  that 
year,  "William  McKinley  being  elected  to  the  Presidency  on 
a  platform  committed  to  the  gold  standard  and  the  restora- 
tion of  the  protective  policy.  The  political  complexion  of 
the  new  Congress  was  also  in  harmony  with  this  platform. 

With  the  enactment  of  the  Dingley  tariff,  which  was  pass- 
ed at  a  special  session  of  the  new  Congress,  all  our  indus- 
tries at  once  revived.  Confidence  was  completely  restored, 
and  on  every  hand  the  fact  was  recognized  that  during  the 
remainder  of  President  McKinley's  term,  if  not  longer,  the 
country's  markets  would  be  secured  to  our  own  people  and 
its  finances  would  rest  on  a  secure  foundation.  But  it  must 
be  frankly  added  that  the  revival  of  prosperity  following 
the  enactment  of  the  new  tariff  was  greatly  promoted  by  the 
fortuitous  circumstance  that  there  was  an  extraordinary  for- 
eign demand  in  1897  for  our  agricultural  products,  of  which, 
happily,  the  year's  harvests  gave  us  a  large  surplus.  Wheat 
rose  to  over  a  dollar  a  bushel.  Railroad  securities  advanced 
in  price,  employment  for  labor  was  more  general,  the  demand 
for  manufactured  products  increased,  and  there  was  a  slight 
improvement  in  the  prices  obtained  for  them.  The  year  1897 
closed  with  the  country  again  prosperous  in  every  channel. 


CHAPTER  X. 

THE    TARIFFS   OF   1842,  1846,  AXD   1857. 

THE  protective  tariff  of  1842  became  a  law  by  the  signa- 
ture of  President  Tyler  on  August  30  of  that  year.  Its  in- 
fluence upon  the  prosperity  of  the  country  is  explained  in 
the  following  extract  from  the  annual  message  of  President 
Tyler  in  December,  1844 :  "  The  credit  of  the  Government, 
which  had  experienced  a  temporary  embarrassment,  has  been 
thoroughly  restored.  Its*  coffers,  which  for  a  season  were 
empty,  have  been  replenished.  A  currency,  nearly  uniform 
in  its  value,  has  taken  the  place  of  one  depreciated  and 
almost  worthless.  Commerce  and  manufactures,  which  had 
suffered  in  common  with  every  other  interest,  have  once 
more  revived,  and  the  whole  country  exhibits  an  aspect  of 
prosperity  and  happiness."  This  beneficent  measure  was  suc- 
ceeded by  the  revenue  tariff  of  1846,  which  received  the  sig- 
nature of  President  Polk  on  July  30  of  that  year. 

The  widely  different  effects  upon  all  the  industries  of  the 
country  of  the  tariffs  of  1842  and  1846  may  be  inferred 
from  their  influence  upon  the  prosperity  of  the  iron  trade. 
The  former,  as  has  been  stated,  was  a  protective  tariff  and 
the  latter  a  tariff  for  revenue  only.  Under  the  operation  of 
the  compromise  tariff  of  1833  the  production  of  pig  iron  in 
this  country  had  fallen  in  1842  to  less  than  230,000  tons. 
The  tariff  of  1842  so  stimulated  the  iron  industry  that  the 
production  in  1846  was  estimated  by  Robert  J.  Walker  to 
amount  to  765,000  tons ;  in  1847  and  1848,  the  impetus 


84  NOTES  AND  COMMENTS. 

given  to  the  iron  industry  by  the  tariff  of  1842  having  been 
checked  by  the  tariff  of  1846,  the  production  of  pig  iron  in- 
creased but  slightly,  reaching  about  800,000  tons  annually; 
in  1849  it  fell  to  about  650,000  tons ;  in  1850  the  census 
showed  a  still  further  reduction  to  563,755  tons.  The  pro- 
duction continued  to  decline  until  1853,  the  production  in 
1852  not  exceeding  500,000  tons.  In  1853  it  began  to  in- 
crease, in  consequence  chiefly  of  the  increased  demand  for 
iron  for  railway  construction,  but  the  increase  was  slow,  and 
in  1857  and  1858  production  again  declined.  The  direct  ef- 
fect of  the  tariff  of  1846  was  to  seriously  check  the  produc- 
tion of  domestic  pig  iron  and  to  close  many  furnaces.  Rob- 
ert J.  Walker's  estimate  of  765,000  tons  in  1846  corresponds 
almost  exactly  with  the  actual  production  of  788,515  tons  in 
1856 — ten  years  later.  In  1860,  the  last  year  of  a  tariff  for 
revenue  only,  we  made  only  821,223  tons. 

In  1842  our  total  imports  of  pig  iron  from  all  countries 
amounted  to  18,694  tons  ;  in  1846  they  increased  to  only 
24,187  tons;  in  1848  they  rose  to  51,632  tons;  in  1849  to 
105,632  tons;  in  1850,  1851,  and  1852  they  averaged  77,000 
tons  ;  in  1853  they  rose  to  114,227  tons  ;  and  in  1854  to  160,- 
484  tons.  Secretary  Walker's  policy  worked  well,  therefore, 
in  increasing  enormously  our  imports  of  pig  iron. 

In  a  communication  to  the  New  York  Journal  of  Com- 
merce, written  on  December  26,  1849,  Cooper  &  Hewitt,  of 
New  York,  showed  the  paralyzing  effects  of  the  tariff  of  1846 
upon  the  whole  American  iron  trade.  We  quote  from  this 
letter  the  following  specific  statements. 

"  What  is  the  real  condition  of  the  domestic  iron  trade  ? 
There  are  one  or  two  positions  in  the  country  which  com- 
bine such  extraordinary  natural  advantages  with  every  supe- 


TARIFF  LEGISLATION  AT  HOME.  85 

rior  quality  as  to  make  them  almost  independent  of  legisla- 
tion ;  but  as  to  the  great  fad  that  the  great  majority  of  es- 
tablishments, judiciously  located  and  managed  with  proper 
skill  and  economy,  have  been  compelled  to  suspend  work, 
throughout  the  land,  for  want  of  remunerating  work  there 
can  not  be  a  shadow  of  doubt.  ...  A  few  merchant 
mills  are  also  kept  in  motion  from  the  absolute  necessity 
of  having  a  certain  amount  of  iron  of  superior  quality  for 
fine  work ;  but  of  fifteen  rail  mills  only  two  are  in  operation, 
doing  partial  work,  and  that  only  because  their  inland  posi- 
tion secured  them  against  foreign  competition  for  the  limit- 
ed orders  of  neighboring  railroads,  and  when  these  are  exe- 
cuted not  a  single  rail  mill  will  be  at  work  in  the  land" 

The  following  letter,  written  from  Brooklyn,  New  York, 
by  "W.  J.  Parsons,  on  February  15,  1882,  and  addressed  to 
the  Secretary  of  the  American  Iron  and  Steel  Association, 
shows  how  the  consumers  of  iron  rails  in  our  country  were 
injured  after  1849  by  the  interrupted  development  of  the 
domestic  rail  industry,  and  it  shows,  too,  who  were  benefited. 
This  letter  confirms  with  curious  and  pathetic  exactness  the 
correctness  of  Cooper  &  Hewitt's  prediction  in  that  year  that 
every  rail  mill  in  the  country  would  soon  be  closed. 

"About  the  year  1850  the  writer  was  a  clerk  in  a  house 
in  Boston  which  represented  one  of  the  largest  of  the  Eng- 
lish iron  rolling  mills.  It  was  a  period  of  low  duties  on  rail- 
road iron ;  I  think  30  per  cent,  ad  valorem  was  the  rate, 
under  the  act  of  1846.  The  United  States  rail  market  was 
supplied  partly  from  England  and  partly  from  American 
mills.  The  prices  of  rails  were  very  low,  and  the  English 
houses  persisted  in  constantly  depressing  them,  until,  as  this 
squeezing  process  went  on,  the  American  mills  gradually 


86  NOTES  AND  COMMENTS. 

shut  down,  and  finally  the  last  American  mill  was  closed. 
When  the  news  from  our  house  went  across  to  England  that 
there  was  no  longer  any  danger  from  American  competition 
the  reply  immediately  came  back,  'Advance  prices.'  This 
process  of  advancing  prices  then  went  on,  until  within  less 
than  a  year  prices  to  the  American  consumers  had  gone  up 
nearly  or  quite  100  per  cent. — far  beyond  the  price  at  which 
the  home  industries  would  gladly  have  supplied  the  demand 
had  they  been  at  work." 

Our  iron  rail  industry  made  a  brave  effort,  however,  to 
recover  from  the  paralyzing  effects  of  the  tariff  of  1846,  but 
how  seriously  it  was  handicapped  by  foreign  competition  will 
be  seen  by  a  study  of  the  following  figures :  In  the  six 
years  from  1849  to  1854,  inclusive,  our  total  production  of 
iron  rails  amounted  to  336,930  tons,  but  in  the  same  six 
years  our  imports  of  iron  rails  amounted  to  1,227,310  tons. 
More  than  three  and  a  half  tons  were  imported  for  every 
ton  that  was  made  at  home. 

Professor  Francis  Bowen,  of  Harvard  College,  in  his  Prin- 
ciples of  Political  Economy,  published  in  1855,  records  in  the 
following  language  some  of  the  general  effects  of  the  tariff 
of  1846 :  "  In  1850  and  1851  the  average  price  of  flour  in 
our  Atlantic  seaports  was  about  $5  a  barrel,  a  price  at  which 
the  farmers  of  the  West  can  not  afford  to  export  it  at  all, 
except  for  the  purpose  of  relieving  a  glutted  market  by  a 
sacrifice.  Meanwhile  the  sale  of  British  manufactures  in 
this  country,  to  the  great  depression  of  our  domestic  indus- 
try, rapidly  increased.  Our  imports  of  the  manufactures  of 
wool,  cotton,  and  iron  for  the  year  ending  in  June,  1851, 
had  become  43  per  cent,  and  for  that  ending  in  June,  1853, 
125  per  cent,  greater  than  they  were  the  year  before  the 


TARIFF  LEGISLATION  AT  HOME.  87 

alteration  of  the  tariff.  To  pay  for  these  extravagant  impor- 
tations we  were  obliged  to  sell  our  agricultural  products  at 
the  reduced  price  just  mentioned  and  to  export  an  immense 
amount  of  California  gold  besides.  This  is  not  all.  Within 
three  years  after  this  reduction  of  the  tariff  the  price  of  the 
imported  iron  began  to  rise  rapidly,  and  in  1852  and  1853 
it  was  even  higher  than  it  had  been  before  the  ruin  of  the 
home  manufacture." 

Professor  Bowen  also  states  that  "  within  three  years  after 
the  effects  of  the  new  tariff  began  to  be  felt  "167  out  of 
304  blast  furnaces  in  Pennsylvania  were  out  of  blast,  being 
55  per  cent.,  "  and  the  iron  made  by  the  remainder  was  49 
per  cent,  less  than  the  quantity  previously  manufactured." 
"  Within  two  years  after  the  enactment  of  the  new  tariff" 
the  product  of  the  200  establishments  for  the  manufacture 
of  wrought  iron  in  Pennsylvania  was  reduced  33  per  cent. 
Professor  Bowen  estimates  that  in  the  whole  country  "the 
new  tariff  threw  out  of  employment  40,000  laborers  "  in  the 
iron  business  alone,  a  large  number  of  persons  to  be  idle  in 
this  countiy  in  one  industry  half  a  century  ago. 

A  leading  feature  of  the  tariff  of  1846  was  the  general 
substitution  of  ad  valorem  for  specific  duties — a  change  ut- 
terly at  war  with  the  protective  policy.  When  imports  are 
entered  at  low  prices  duties  are  low  and  the  home  manufac- 
turer loses  the  protection  which  he  then  most  needs ;  when 
imports  are  entered  at  high  prices  duties  are  advanced  and 
the  home  manufacturer  is  bountifully  protected  when  protec- 
tion is  least  needed.  An  ad  valorem  duty  of  25  per  cent,  on 
foreign  pig  iron  costing  $8  per  ton  would  protect  the  home 
manufacturer  $2  per  ton  when  he  might  be  sorely  pressed 
by  foreign  competition,  but  if  the  price  of  foreign  pig  iron 


88  NOTES  AND   COMMENTS. 

should  advance  to  $16  per  ton  the  home  manufacturer  with 
the  same  ad  valorem  duty  would  receive  $4  per  ton  protec- 
tion when  he  did  not  need  it,  while  an  unnecessary  burden 
would  be  placed  upon  the  domestic  consumer  of  foreign  pig 
iron.  And  so  with  all  other  commodities  which  might  be 
subject  to  ad  valorem  duties. 

If  ad  valorem  duties  are  continued  long  enough  with  im- 
ports at  low  prices  there  will  be  few  home  manufactures 
with  which  to  compete  when  prices  advance.  Precisely  this 
experience  followed  the  passage  of  the  tariff  of  1846.  Brit- 
ish manufacturers  threw  their  goods  on  our  markets  at  ex- 
tremely low  prices,  and,  while  the  enemies  of  protection  were 
pointing  to  these  cheap  goods  as  proof  of  the  wisdom  which 
had  framed  a  purely  revenue  tariff,  many  of  the  manufac- 
turing establishments  of  the  country  ceased  to  manufacture, 
men  everywhere  were  thrown  out  of  employment,  and  the 
brief  prosperity  which  succeeded  the  passage  of  the  tariff  of 
1842  quickly  departed.  Then,  when  domestic  competition 
was  no  longer  feared,  because  it  was  no  longer  hopeful  or  en- 
terprising or  powerful,  the  prices  of  foreign  commodities  were 
advanced  and  the  foreign  manufacturer  reaped  a  bountiful 
harvest. 

The  average  annual  price  of  iron  rails  in  this  country 
fell  from  $53.88  per  ton  in  1849  to  $45.63  in  1851.  After 

1851,  the  development  of  our  iron  rail  industry  having  been 
thoroughly  checked,  the  average  price  advanced  as  follows : 

1852,  $48.38 ;  1853,  $77.25  ;   1854,  $80.13  ;   1855,  $62.88  ; 
1856,  $64.38 ;  1857,  $64.25.     In  1857  a  great  panic  occur- 
red, as  the  result  of  heavy  importations  of  foreign  goods  and 
a  further  reduction  of  duties,  the  price  of  iron  rails  going 
down  in  the  general  crash. 


TARIFF  LEGISLATION  AT  HOME.  89 

The  average  annual  price  of  bar  iron  in  this  country  dur- 
ing the  same  period  fell  and  rose  and  then  fell  again,  as  did 
the  price  of  iron  rails.  It  fell  from  $67.50  per  ton  in  1849 
to  $54.66  in  1851.  Then,  with  most  of  our  rolling  mills 
either  silent  or  working  spasmodically,  and  with  a  thorough 
check  to  further  rolling-mill  development,  the  price  began 
to  rise.  In  1852  it  was  $58.79 ;  in  1853,  $83.50 ;  in  1854, 
$91.33;  in  1855,  $74.58;  in  1856,  $73.75;  in  1857,  $71.04. 

In  his  third  annual  message,  dated  December  6,  1852, 
President  Fillmore  said  :  "  The  destruction  of  our  manufac- 
tures leaves  the  foreigner  without  competition  in  our  mar- 
ket, and  he  consequently  raises  the  price  of  the  article  sent 
here  for  sale,  as  is  now  seen  in  the  increased  cost  of  iron  im- 
ported from  England."  In  1857,  from  sheer  exhaustion,  as 
the  result  of  an  experience  of  more  than  ten  years  with  a 
tariff  for  revenue  only,  we  began  to  buy  less  and  less  abroad 
and  prices  rapidly  went  down. 

The  New  York  Tribune  for  January  15,  1855,  presented 
to  its  readers  the  following  object  lesson  showing  the  painful 
consequences  of  the  reduction  of  duties  to  a  revenue  basis  in 
1846.  "Who  is  hungry?  Go  and  see.  You  that  are  full- 
fed  and  know  not  what  it  is  to  be  hungry — perhaps  never 
saw  a  hungry  man — go  and  see.  Go  and  see  a  thousand 
men,  women,  boys,  girls,  old  and  young,  black  and  white,  of 
all  nations  but  one — there  are  no  Americans — crowding  and 
jostling  each  other,  almost  fighting  for  a  first  chance — acting 
more  like  hungry  wolves  than  human  beings  in  a  land  of 
plenty.  .  .  .  Such  a  scene  may  be  seen  every  day,  from 
11  till  2  o'clock,  around  the  corner  of  Orange  and  Chatham 
streets,  where  Lindenmuller  gives  a  dinner  to  the  poor  and 
soup  and  bread  to  others  to  carry  to  their  miserable  families. 


90  NOTES  AND  COMMENTS. 

.  .  .  On  Saturday  we  spent  an  hour  there  at  the  time 
of  high  tide.  We  have  never  seen  anything  like  it  before. 
On  Friday  upwards  of  a  thousand  people  were  fed  with  a 
plate  of  soup,  a  piece  of  bread,  and  a  piece  of  meat  on  the 
premises,  and  in  all  upwards  of  sixteen  hundred.  On  the 
same  day  1,130  portions  of  soup  were  dealt  out  from  Stew- 
art's soup  kitchen  in  the  rear  of  the  great  marble  palace 
store,  corner  of  Reade  street  and  Broadway.  ...  At  the 
rooms  in  Duane  street  for  the  relief  of  the  poor  of  the  sixth 
ward,  on  the  same  day,  they  gave  food  to  2,256.  At  the 
Five  Points  House  of  Industry,  on  the  same  day,  .  .  . 
it  is  calculated  that  a  thousand  meals  were  given — say  700 
different  persons  fed.  Counting  the  number  at  the  Old  Bow- 
ery Mission  at  only  half  that  number,  we  have,  in  the  sixth 
ward,  a  total  of  over  6,000  persons  fed  by  charity  on  Fri- 
day, January  12th.  .  .  .  Recollect,  this  is  only  one  day 
in  one  ward." 

The  tariff  of  1857,  which  was  approved  by  President 
Pierce  on  March  3,  1857,  reduced  duties  below  the  rates  in 
the  tariff  of  1846,  continuing  the  revenue  policy  of  that  act. 
The  panic  of  1857  followed.  Upon  many  imported  articles 
the  tariff  of  1846  imposed  an  ad  valorem  duty  of  30  per 
cent.,  which  the  tariff  of  1857  reduced  to  24  per  cent.  The 
Boston  Sentinel  for  October  24,  1885,  gives  the  following 
picture  of  the  effects  of  the  tariff  of  1857  upon  the  indus- 
tries of  Massachusetts. 

"The  industrial  situation  in  1857,  and  we  might  add  all 
through  President  Buchanan's  Administration,  [from  1857  to 
1861,]  was  most  depressing.  There  was  no  certainty  of  em- 
ployment for  factory  or  machine-shop  operatives.  Wages 
were  low  and  very  uncertain.  Half  the  time  small  manu- 


TARIFF  LEGISLATION  AT  HOME.  91 

facturers  paid  their  help  in  orders  on  country  stores,  and 
the  store  men  charged  whatever  they  pleased.  Jack-spinners, 
for  instance,  worked  when  they  could  get  work  for  less  than 
80  cents  a  day,  and  we  have  full  recollection  that  in  the 
Fitchburg,  Massachusetts,  woolen  mill  they  worked  fourteen 
hours  a  day  for  $14  a  month  and  board.  They  got  paid 
once  in  every  three  months,  and  yet  this  was  considered  one 
of  the  best  mills  to  work  in  in  those  days  because  it  was 
steady  and  never  was  known  to  stop  or  suspend.  In  the 
large  manufacturing  cities,  in  Lowell,  Lawrence,  etc.,  there 
was  positive  want  among  the  poorer  operatives.  In  Law- 
rence, particularly,  which  was  a  new  city  and  had  a  large 
number  of  new  arrivals  J;hat  had  nothing  laid  away,  there 
was  a  sad  state  of  affairs.  Real  estate  tumbled  to  a  mere 
nothing.  In  some  parts  of  the  city  it  could  scarcely  be 
disposed  of  at  any  price.  We  have  a  vivid  recollection  of 
these  and  hundreds  of  other  similar  facts." 

The  experience  of  Massachusetts  under  the  tariff  of  1857 
was  shared  by  every  other  State  in  the  Union.  There  was 
no  prosperity  anywhere.  Judge  Kelley  says  that  the  period 
from  1857  to  the  fall  of  1861  was  one  of  the  darkest  ever 
seen  by  the  laboring  people  of  America.  The  Judge  adds : 
"In  Philadelphia,  when  they  wanted  to  build  a  street  rail- 
road, they  advertised  for  two  hundred  and  fifty  hands  at 
sixty  cents  a  day,  and  more  than  five  thousand  offered,  a 
majority  of  whom  were  skilled  artisans  who  could  find  no 
other  employment.  In  the  neighborhood  of  one  of  the  es- 
tablishments, a  rolling  mill,  the  number  of  unemployed  men 
was  so  great  that  the  county  authorities,  to  save  its  skilled 
workmen  from  open  pauperism,  determined  to  build  a  turn- 
pike, and  experienced  hands  from  rolling  mills  were  em- 


92  NOTES  AND   COMMENTS. 

ployed  at  breaking  stone  and  road-making  at  fifty  cents  a 
day  rather  than  become  paupers." 

So  inadequate  were  the  revenues  from  the  tariff  of  1857 
that  Mr.  Buchanan  was  compelled  near  the  close  of  his 
term  to  borrow  money  to  save  the  public  credit.  The  Mor- 
rill  tariff  act  of  March  2,  1861,  therefore  became  a  financial 
necessity  of  the  Government  as  well  as  a  means  of  rehabili- 
tating the  prostrated  industries  of  the  country. 

No  finer  compliment  has  ever  been  paid  to  Hon.  Justin 
S.  Morrill,  who  is  now  (in  1897)  in  his  88th  year  and  an 
active  member  of  the  United  States  Senate,  than  that  which 
was  conveyed  to  him  in  the  following  letter  from  the  first  of 
American  political  economists  the  day  after  the  Morrill  tariff 
bill  passed  the  Senate  and  prior  to  its  approval  by  President 
Buchanan : 

Dear  Sir:  Accept  my  congratulations  upon  the  happy  termina- 
tion of  your  tariff  labours.  You  have  now  connected  your  name 
with  what  is  destined,  as  I  think,  to  prove  the  most  important 
measure  ever  adopted  by  Congress.  With  great  regard, 

Yours  Very  Truly,  HENRY  C.  CAREY. 

PHILADELPHIA,  February  27,  1861. 

Various  supplements  to  the  tariff  act  of  1861  were  enact- 
ed during  the  period  of  the  civil  war  and  immediately  after 
its  close,  all  of  which  continued  the  protective  policy  and 
some  of  which  materially  increased  duties. 


CHAPTER  XI. 

TARIFF   LEGISLATION   FROM  1870  TO  1897. 

OUR  personal  knowledge  of  tariff  legislation  at  Washing- 
ton dates  from  the  early  months  of  1870  and  covers  the  in- 
tervening period  of  twenty-eight  years.  The  Forty-first  Con- 
gress was  then  in  session,  and  a  general  revision  of  the  vari- 
ous tariff  laws  of  the  war  period  was  one  of  the  important 
measures  under  consideration.  Both  branches  of  Congress 
were  Republican.  Mr.  Elaine  was  the  Speaker  of  the  House 
of  Representatives.  On*  July  14,  1870,  the  Schenck  tariff 
bill,  which  had  been  debated  for  almost  six  months,  became 
a  law,  taking  effect  on  January  1, 1871.  One  of  its  leading 
features  was  the  levying  of  a  duty  of  $28  per  ton  on  steel 
rails,  which  duty  subsequently  built  up  our  great  steel  rail 
industry.  Another  feature  was  the  repeal  of  the  income  tax 
which  had  been  imposed  during  the  war.  The  whole  scope 
and  intention  of  the  tariff  act  of  1870  were  most  friendly  to 
American  industries,  and  the  consequences  of  this  legislation 
were  of  immense  value  and  of  far-reaching  importance.  The 
tariff  act  of  1870  definitely  fixed  the  revenue  policy  of  the 
Republican  party  in  time  of  peace  on  protectionist  lines,  and 
this  tariff  was  a  strong  bulwark  of  defense  for  the  industries 
of  the  country  during  the  trying  years  following  the  panic 
of  1873.  It  was  in  force  without  material  change  for  thir- 
teen years,  until  1883,  when  it  was  succeeded  by  the  tariff 
act  of  that  year,  which  was  also  a  measure  of  protection. 

General  Robert  C.  Schenck's  services  to  his  country   in 


94  NOTES  AND   COMMENTS. 

passing  through  the  House  the  tariff  act  of  1870,  against 
formidable  opposition,  entitle  his  name  to  rank  in  the  list  of 
its  greatest  benefactors.  But  for  the  protective  features  of 
the  act  of  1870,  many  of  which  were  vigorously  opposed  by 
members  of  the  House  in  General  Schenck's  own  party,  our 
leading  mining  and  manufacturing  industries  would  have 
been  completely  overwhelmed  by  foreign  competition  during 
the  panic  years  from  1873  to  1879,  and  the  hardships  and 
privations  of  that  dark  period  would  have  been  increased 
beyond  calculation.  Nor  could  the  country  have  bounded 
forward  as  it  did  in  1879  and  1880  if  a  less  protective  tariff 
than  that  of  1870  had  been  in  force.  General  Schenck's 
courage  and  skill  in  passing  this  measure  through  the  House 
have  never  been  excelled  in  a  legislative  struggle. 

There  was  important  tariff  legislation  in  the  years  1871, 
1872,  and  1875.  Congressional  action  in  1871  and  1872  was 
upon  two  bills,  both  aiming  at  a  reduction  of  revenue,  which 
had  become  excessive.  The  Republicans  were  in  control  of 
the  House.  Mr.  Elaine  was  the  Speaker.  The  first  bill,  to 
repeal  the  duties  on  tea  and  coffee,  was  introduced  in  the 
House  by  Samuel  J.  Randall,  Democrat,  of  Pennsylvania,  in 
1871,  and  it  passed  that  body  without  debate.  In  1872, 
under  the  active  leadership  of  Senator  John  Scott,  Republi- 
can, of  Pennsylvania,  it  passed  the  Senate,  becoming  a  law 
on  May  1,  1872,  and  taking  effect  on  July  1st  of  the  same 
year.  The  second  bill  was  introduced  in  the  House  in  1872 
by  Mr.  Dawes,  chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Ways  and 
Means,  and  provided  for  a  reduction  of  10  per  cent,  on  a 
large  number  of  articles,  many  iron  and  steel  articles  being 
included.  This  bill  passed  both  houses  by  large  majorities 
and  became  a  law  on  June  6, 1872,  taking  effect  on  August 


TARIFF  LEGISLATION  AT  HOME.  95 

1st.  This  legislation  was  a  mistake,  as  it  needlessly  encour- 
aged importations  of  foreign  goods.  An  agitation  in  favor 
of  its  repeal  resulted  in  the  passage  in  1875  of  a  bill  contain- 
ing a  repealing  provision,  which  became  a  law  and  took  ef- 
fect on  March  3,  1875.  This  repealing  provision  was  asso- 
ciated with  other  provisions  affecting  internal  revenue  taxes. 
By  the  passage  of  the  act  of  March  3,  1875,  virtually  all 
duties  on  manufactured  articles  were  restored  to  the  rates 
fixed  in  the  Schenck  tariff  of  1870.  The  duties  on  tea  and 
coffee,  which  were  repealed  in  1872,  have  never  since  been 
restored,  in*  whole  or  in  part. 

In  1876,  the  Democrats  having  control  of  the  House  of 
Representatives,  and  Mr.  Kerr,  of  Indiana,  an  intense  free 
trader,  being  the  Speaker,-"Mr.  Morrison,  the  chairman  of  the 
Committee  on  "Ways  and  Means,  introduced  a  complete  tariff 
bill,  which  was  not  considered  by  the  House  and  was  never 
voted  upon.  The  Wood  tariff  bill  of  1878,  the  Democrats 
again  having  control  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  gave 
the  manufacturers  of  the  country  great  anxiety,  but  after  a 
long  discussion  it  was  defeated  upon  the  motion  of  General 
Butler  to  strike  out  the  enacting  clause,  the  vote  being  134 
yeas  to  121  nays,  19  Democrats  voting  to  strike  out.  Mr. 
Randall,  a  sound  protectionist,  although  a  Democrat,  was  the 
Speaker  of  the  House  at  this  tune,  having  in  1876  succeed- 
ed Mr.  Kerr,  who  died  in  that  year. 

A  determined  effort  to  reduce  the  steel  rail  duty  to  $10 
per  ton  was  made  in  1880,  through  the  Covert  bill,  but  this 
measure  was  beaten  in  the  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means, 
after  a  spirited  hearing  by  the  committee  of  the  domestic 
manufacturers  of  steel  rails  and  of  representatives  of  a  few 
railroad  companies  which  asked  for  the  proposed  reduction. 


96  NOTES  AND   COMMENTS. 

The  defeat  of  the  bill  in  the  committee  turned  upon  one 
vote,  a  motion  to  lay  it  on  the  table  receiving  seven  af- 
firmative and  six  negative  votes.  This  decisive  action  was 
taken  on  March  2,  1880.  That  was  a  critical  time  for  our 
steel  rail  industry.  At  the  same  session  of  the  committee  a 
bill  introduced  by  Mr.  Morrison,  providing  that,  in  certain 
specified  schedules  of  the  existing  tariff,  no  duty  should  be 
levied  in  excess  of  50  per  cent,  of  the  foreign  value  of  the 
article  imported,  was  also  laid  on  the  table  by  the  same  vote. 

The  defeat  of  the  Covert  bill  to  reduce  the  duty  on  steel 
rails  to  $10  per  ton  was  secured  in  large  part  by  the  intel- 
ligent and  active  exertions  of  Judge  William  D.  Kelley,  of 
Pennsylvania,  a  member  of  the  Committee  on  Ways  and 
Means,  whose  devotion  to  the  protective  policy  during  his 
long  service  of  almost  thirty  years  in  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives, from  1861  to  1890,  never  flagged  for  one  moment. 
His  advocacy  of  this  policy  was  never  apologetic  and  was 
always  aggressive.  His  courage  saved  the  day  in  more  than 
one  crisis  when  protection  was  endangered  fully  as  much  by 
the  attitude  of  some  of  its  friends  as  by  the  attacks  of  its 
outspoken  enemies.  He  stands  at  the  head  of  all  the  Con- 
gressional advocates  of  protection  in  this  generation.  He 
was  a  hard  student,  an  accomplished  rhetorician,  and  a  born 
orator.  His  "  Reasons  for  Abandoning  the  Theory  of  Free 
Trade,"  prefixed  to  a  volume  of  his  Speeches,  Addresses,  and 
Letters,  should  be  read  by  every  student  of  political  economy. 

The  tariff  act  of  1883  was  a  measure  of  protection,  fram- 
ed by  a  Republican  Congress  on  the  lines  of  the  Schenck 
bill,  but  lacking  in  symmetry  and  bearing  on  almost  every 
page  marks  of  the  haste  of  a  committee  of  conference.  The 
act  followed  in  part  the  suggestions  of  a  Tariff  Commission 


TARIFF  LEGISLATION  AT  HOME.  97 

which  had  been  authorized  by  Congress  in  1882  and  which 
'.  had  been  appointed  by  President  Arthur.  The  commission 
prepared  a  complete  tariff  bill.  The  act  of  1883  was  the 
work  chiefly  of  the  Senate  Committee  on  Finance  and  of  a 
committee  of  conference.  It  would  have  been  better  if  the 
bill  of  the  Tariff  Commission  had  been  accepted  without 
material  amendment.  Mr.  Keifer  was  the  Speaker  of  the 
House  at  this  time  and  Judge  Kelley  was  the  chairman  of 
the  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means. 

John  L.  Hayes,  of  Boston,  secretary  of  the  National  As- 
sociation of  Wool  Manufacturers,  was  the  president  of  the 
Tariff  Commission.  His  great  work  in  life  was  his  earnest 
advocacy  of  the  protective  policy.  He  was  not  excelled  in 
the  earnestness  and  zeal  with  which  he  advocated  this  policy ; 
in  the  fullness  of  his  knowledge  of  his  subject  he  had  few 
equals.  He  was  an  accomplished  scholar  and  a  writer  of  the 
purest  and  strongest  English  of  this  age  of  good  English 
writing.  Nowhere  can  we  find  greater  ease,  simplicity,  grace, 
and  force  of  expression,  clearer  presentation  of  facts,  or 
more  orderly  and  logical  arrangement  of  details  than  in  his 
numerous  addresses,  essays,  and  other  publications.  He  also 
possessed  a  fine  poetic  sense,  which  is  visible  in  many  of  his 
voluminous  prose  writings,  but  is  found  in  its  most  perfect 
manifestation  in  that  wonderful  work  produced  during  his 
last  illness — his  translation  of  mediaeval  Latin  hymns. 

Soon  after  the  passage  of  the  tariff  act  of  1883  the  Dem- 
ocrats, again  having  a  majority  in  the  House,  began  an  agi- 
tation for  its  repeal.  Mr.  Carlisle  was  the  Speaker  in  1884 
when  Mr.  Morrison,  who  was  again  the  chairman  of  the 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means,  introduced  in  the  House  his 
twenty-per-ceut.  "horizontal  reduction"  tariff  bill,  which  led 


98  NOTES  AND  COMMENTS. 

to  a  long  debate,  resulting  in  the  defeat  of  the  bill  upon  the 
motion  of  Mr.  Converse,  Democrat,  to  strike  out  the  enacting 
clause,  Mr.  Randall  and  39  other  Democrats  voting  with  Mr. 
Converse.  The  House  was  Democratic  by  a  large  majority. 
The  vote  was  159  to  strike  out  and  155  to  sustain  the  bill. 

In  November  of  the  same  year  Mr.  Cleveland  was  elected 
to  the  Presidency.  In  his  first  annual  message  to  Congress, 
in  December,  1885,  Mr.  Cleveland  recommended  a  general  re- 
duction of  duties.  Mr.  Carlisle  was  again  Speaker  and  Mr. 
Morrison  was  again  at  the  head  of  the  Committee  on  "Ways 
and  Means.  Early  in  1886  Mr.  Morrison  introduced  another 
bill  to  revise  and  reduce  the  tariff.  This  bill  was  also  de- 
feated, the  House,  which  was  again  Democratic  by  a  large 
majority,  refusing  even  to  consider  it,  the  vote  being  140 
yeas  to  157  nays,  Mr.  Randall  and  34  other  Democrats  vot- 
ing to  kill  the  bill.  For  this  vote  Mr.  Cleveland  never  for- 
gave Mr.  Randall. 

In  his  next  annual  message,  submitted  in  December,  1886, 
Mr.  Cleveland  again  recommended  a  reduction  of  duties,  and 
in  the  same  month  Mr.  Morrison  brought  forward  his  tariff 
bill  of  the  preceding  session,  but  the  House  again  refused  to 
consider  it,  the  vote  being  149  yeas  to  154  nays,  Mr.  Ran- 
dall and  25  other  Democrats  voting  in  the  negative.  That 
was  the  virtual  end  of  tariff  agitation  in  that  Congress. 

But  Mr.  Cleveland  was  determined  to  have  his  own  way, 
and  in  his  annual  message  in  December,  1887,  he  again  rec- 
ommended a  reduction  of  duties.  This  message  marked  a 
more  radical  advance  by  Mr.  Cleveland  toward  free  trade 
than  any  of  his  previous  utterances  on  the  tariff  question, 
and  it  alarmed  the  country.  In  January,  1888,  Mr.  Mills, 
of  Texas,  became  the  chairman  of  the  new  Committee  on 


TARIFF  LEGISLATION  AT  HOME.  99 

Ways  and  Means,  the  House  again  being  Democratic,  and 
Mr.  Carlisle  again  being  Speaker.  On  March  1st  Mr.  Mills 
submitted  to  the  committee  his  now  famous  tariff  bill,  which 
proposed  a  general  reduction  of  duties.  Before  a  vote  upon 
its  merits  had  been  taken  in  the  House  Mr.  Cleveland  was 
nominated  at  St.  Louis,  in  June,  for  a  second  term  upon  a 
platform  specifically  indorsing  his  tariff  views.  In  the  same 
month  General  Harrison  was  nominated  at  Chicago  for  the 
Presidency  upon  a  platform  in  which  the  Mills  bill  was  de- 
nounced by  name.  On  July  21st  the  Mills  bill  passed  the 
House  by  a  vote  of  162  yeas  to  149  nays.  Only  four  Dem- 
ocrats voted  against  it.  Mr.  Randall  would  have  also  voted 
against  the  bill  if  he  had  not  been  too  ill  to  be  in  his  seat. 
Not  a  great  scholar,  nor  a  great  orator,  nor  a  great  writ- 
er, Samuel  J.  Randall  was  nevertheless  a  man  of  sterling 
common  sense,  quick  perceptions,  great  courage,  broad  views, 
and  extraordinary  capacity  for  work.  He  had  the  courage 
of  Andrew  Jackson  and  the  kindness  of  heart  of  Abraham 
Lincoln.  He  was  born  for  public  affairs  and  he  was  a  born 
leader  of  men.  Like  his  great  townsman,  Judge  Kelley,  he 
was  a  thorough  American  in  all  his  instincts  and  aspira- 
tions. His  ardent  patriotism  made  him  a  strong  protection- 
ist all  his  days,  although  the  Democratic  party  to  which  he 
belonged  has  in  late  years  widely  differed  with  him  on  eco- 
nomic questions,  and  with  Madison  and  others  who  founded 
it.  His  services  to  the  industries  of  his  country  have  been 
invaluable.  On  more  than  one  critical  occasion  he  stood  in 
the  breach  and  prevented  by  his  own  determined  will  the  in- 
fliction of  serious  injury  to  those  industries  from  that  wing 
of  his  party  which  did  not  sympathize  with  his  protectionist 
convictions. 


100  NOTES  AND  COMMENTS. 

In  behalf  of  the  Republican  majority  in  the  Senate  Sen- 
ator Allison,  chairman  of  a  sub-committee  of  the  Committee 
on  Finance,  submitted  on  October  3,  1888,  a  substitute  for 
the  Mills  bill.  The  substitute  was  a  thoroughly  protective 
measure.  Both  bills  were  fully  discussed  in  the  Senate  and 
on  the  stump  and  in  the  newspapers  during  the  remainder 
of  the  Presidential  campaign.  The  Senate  substitute  passed 
that  body  on  January  22,  1889,  by  a  vote  of  32  yeas  to  30 
nays.  It  was  never  considered  by  the  House.  The  Mills  bill 
was,  however,  dead.  In  the  meantime,  in  November,  1888, 
Mr.  Cleveland  had  been  defeated  for  the  Presidency  by  a 
close  vote,  the  principal  issue  being  the  tariff  question  as  it 
was  presented  in  the  two  bills  referred  to.  At  the  same  elec- 
tion the  Republicans  succeeded  to  the  control  of  the  House 
of  Representatives. 

As  a  logical  sequence  of  the  Republican  success  in  1888 
the  House  of  Representatives,  when  it  met  in  December, 
1889,  undertook  the  revision  of  the  tariff  of  1883  on  the 
lines  of  the  Senate  substitute  for  the  Mills  bill.  This  revis- 
ion subsequently  became  a  law  and  is  known  as  the  McKin- 
ley  tariff,  William  McKinley  being  the  chairman  of  the 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means  which  framed  the  bill.  Mr. 
Reed  was  the  Speaker.  The  McKinley  tariff  bill  passed  the 
House  on  May  21, 1890,  by  a  vote  of  164  yeas  to  142  nays. 
It  passed  the  Senate  on  September  10th  .by  a  vote  of  40  yeas 
to  29  nays,  and  after  passing  through  a  committee  of  confer- 
ence it  became  a  law  on  October  1st,  taking  effect  on  Octo- 
ber 6th.  The  Senate  had  made  many  changes  in  the  House 
bill,  some  of  these  changes  materially  reducing  duties,  but  in 
the  conference  committee  most  of  the  original  House  rates 
were  restored.  A  prominent  feature  of  the  new  tariff  was 


TARIFF  LEGISLATION  AT  HOME.  101 

the  insertion  of  an  adequately  protective  duty  on  tinplates, 
which  at  once  gave  a  great  impetus  to  the  establishment  of 
a  tinplate  industry  in  our  country — an  industry  which  had 
not  previously  had  an  existence  on  American  soil,  except  as 
an  experiment  which  had  failed  through  the  pressure  of  for- 
eign competition. 

An  important  service  was  rendered  by  Senator  Quay,  of 
Pennsylvania,  in  connection  with  the  McKinley  tariff  bill. 
The  bill  was  jeopardized  in  the  Senate  by  the  Federal  Elec- 
tions bill,  the  so-called  "  Force  bill,"  which  many  Republi- 
can Senators  were  determined  to  pass  and  which  Democratic 
Senators,  who  were  in  the  minority,  were  determined  to  de- 
feat by  obstructive  tactics,  or,  in  other  words,  by  talking  the 
bill  to  death.  If  this  scheme  of  the  Democrats  had  been  car- 
ried out  they  would  not  only  have  succeeded  in  defeating 
the  "  Force  bill "  but  they  would  also  have  prevented  the 
passage  of  the  McKinley  tariff  bill  through  the  Senate,  as 
the  time  consumed  in  killing  the  "  Force  bill "  would  have 
prevented  the  consideration  of  the  McKinley  bill.  Senator 
Quay  had  the  skill  and  adroitness  to  rescue  the  McKinley 
bill  from  this  serious  dilemma  by  securing  the  adoption  of 
an  order  of  business  which  gave  it  the  right  of  way  over  the 
"  Force  bill."  Thenceforward  the  bill  had  plain  sailing. 

At  the  Congressional  elections  in  1890  which  immediately 
followed  the  enactment  of  the  McKinley  tariff  the  Republi- 
can party  was  defeated,  and  at  the  Presidential  and  Con- 
gressional elections  in  1892  it  was  again  defeated.  Mr. 
Cleveland,  now  a  virtual  free  trader,  was  again  elected  to 
the  Presidency.  For  the  first  time  in  almost  forty  years 
the  Presidency  and  both  branches  of  Congress  passed  into  the 
hands  of  the  Democratic  party.  This  revolution,  which  was 


102  NOTES  AND  COMMENTS. 

the  result  in  large  part  of  widespread  discontent  with  exist- 
ing social  conditions,  was  of  so  sweeping  a  character  and 
threatened  such  radical  changes  in  tariff  and  financial  legis- 
lation that  thoughtful  business  men,  including  many  who 
had  supported  the  successful  party,  at  once  became  alarmed. 
A  tightening  of  the  money  market  soon  followed  and  many 
failures  occurred.  Stocks  rapidly  declined.  Confidence  in 
the  stability  of  the  currency  was  shaken  by  heavy  gold 
shipments.  On  May  3,  1893,  Wall  street  was  the  scene  of 
intense  excitement,  and  on  that  day  another  great  financial 
panic  had  its  beginning.  This  panic,  with  its  attendant  con- 
sequences and  accompanying  disturbances,  rested  like  a  pall 
upon  the  industries  of  the  country  until  the  summer  of  1897. 

President  Cleveland  convened  Congress  in  special  session 
on  the  7th  of  August,  1893,  to  consider  the  financial  crisis, 
which  he  attributed  to  an  unwise  financial  policy  embodied 
in  unwise  laws.  Both  houses  of  Congress  met  on  the  day 
mentioned,  and  on  the  1st  of  November  the  President  signed 
the  Voorhees  bill  repealing  the  silver-purchase  provision  of 
the  Sherman  act  of  1890.  It  is  enough  to  say  of  this  legis- 
lation, which  occupied  almost  three  months  of  time,  that  it 
did  not  accomplish  the  results  that  had  been  claimed  for  it. 
The  people  were  not  "  relieved  through  legislation,"  to  quote 
the  President's  language,  "  from  present  and  impending  dan- 
ger and  distress."  The  depression  continued  and  increased 
in  severity. 

While  the  repeal  of  the  Sherman  act  was  under  consider- 
ation a  new  tariff  bill  was  in  course  of  preparation  by  the 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means,  in  compliance  with  the  Pres- 
ident's wishes,  Mr.  Wilson  being  chairman  of  the  committee. 
Mr.  Crisp  was  the  Speaker.  When  Congress  met  in  regular 


TARIFF  LEGISLATION  AT  HOME.  103 

session  in  December  the  so-called  Wilson  tariff  bill  was  at 
once  perfected,  and  on  the  19th  of  December  it  was  report- 
ed to  the  House.  It  passed  that  body  on  the  1st  of  Febru- 
ary, 1894.  On  the  3d  of  July  a  substitute  for  the  "Wilson 
bill,  which  embodied  much  more  favorable  consideration  of 
American  interests  and  less  regard  for  foreign  interests,  pass- 
ed the  Senate.  The  two  bills  were  considered  for  several 
weeks  in  a  conference  committee,  and  on  August  13th  the 
whole  subject  was  finally  disposed  of  by  the  passage  through 
the  House  of  the  Senate  bill.  It  did  not  receive  the  Presi- 
dent's approval,  but  it  became  a  law  on  August  28,  1894, 
through  the  failure  of  the  President  to  interpose  a  veto. 

Senator  Quay's  part  in  securing  the  defeat  of  the  original 
Wilson  tariff  bill  in  1894  and  the  substitution  of  higher 
rates  of  duty  for  hundreds  of  its  practically  free  trade  pro- 
visions can  not  be  overlooked  by  the  impartial  historian.  It 
was  of  inestimable  value  to  the  country.  The  Senator  did 
not  need  to  convince  Senator  Gorman  and  four  or  five  oth- 
er Democratic  Senators  of  the  destructive  character  of  the 
Wilson  bill,  but  it  was  vitally  necessary  that  about  thirty 
other  Democratic  Senators  should  be  convinced  that,  if  they 
did  not  vote  to  give  at  least  partial  protection  to  the  indus- 
tries which  had  been  so  seriously  threatened  by  the  Wilson 
bill,  that  bill  could  never  become  a  law ;  with  the  assistance 
of  other  Republicans  he  would  deal  with  it  as  the  Demo- 
crats had  proposed  to  deal  with  the  "  Force  bill."  This 
threat,  which  was  partly  carried  out  by  the  delivery  of  the 
Senator's  obstructive  speech,  occupying  twelve  days  in  April, 
May,  and  June,  1894,  had  the  effect  that  was  desired.  The 
tariff  bill  which  became  a  law  was  not  the  original  Wilson 
bill  at  all.  Many  of  its  worst  features  were  eliminated. 


104  NOTES  AND   COMMENTS. 

That  the  difference  between  the  Wilson  bill  as  it  passed 
the  House  and  the  Senate  substitute  may  be  clearly  under- 
stood a  few  of  the  provisions  of  the  metal  schedule  of  the 
two  bills  may  be  mentioned.  The  Wilson  bill  placed  coal 
and  iron  ore  in  the  free  list ;  the  Senate  bill  imposed  a  duty 
of  40  cents  per  ton  on  both  articles.  The  Wilson  bill  placed 
a  duty  of  20  per  cent,  on  pig  iron,  equivalent  to  a  specific 
duty  of  from  $1.50  to  $2  per  ton ;  the  Senate  bill  imposed 
a  duty  of  $4  per  ton,  or  fully  twice  as  much  as  the  Wilson 
bill.  The  Wilson  bill  placed  a  duty  of  20  per  cent,  on  steel 
rails,  equivalent  to  a  specific  duty  of  from  $3.25  to  $3.50 
per  ton ;  the  Senate  bill  imposed  a  duty  of  $7.84  per  ton,  or 
more  than  twice  as  much  as  the  Wilson  bill.  The  Wilson 
bill  placed  a  duty  of  30  per  cent,  upon  structural  shapes 
of  iron  or  steel,  equivalent  to  a  specific  duty  of  about  $6 
per  ton ;  the  Senate  bill  imposed  a  duty  of  $13.44  per  ton, 
or  more  than  twice  as  much  as .  the  Wilson  bill.  Many 
other  radical  changes  in  the  metal  schedule  of  the  Wilson 
bill  which  were  made  by  the  Senate  and  forced  upon  the 
House  might  be  added  to  the  above.  Some  of  the  other 
schedules  of  the  Wilson  bill  did  not  fare  so  well  in  the  hands 
of  the  Senate  as  the  metal  schedule.  The  cotton  schedule 
fared  fully  as  well.  But  all  the  schedules  were  made  more 
protective  by  the  Senate  than  they  were  in  the  original 
Wilson  bill,  which  proposed  a  great  stride  toward  free  trade. 

Nevertheless  the  amended  Wilson  tariff  bill  gave  a  severe 
blow  to  the  industries  of  the  country.  One  of  its  worst  fea- 
tures was  the  placing  of  wool  in  the  free  list,  and  another 
was  the  serious  reduction  in  the  duties  on  woolen  goods. 
Notwithstanding  a  partial  revival  of  confidence  and  of  busi- 
ness activity  following  the  passage  of  the  amended  Wilson 


TARIFF  LEGISLATION  AT  HOME.  105 

bill  the  country  did  not  approve  of  that  act  of  legislation. 
The  Congressional  elections  of  1894  were  carried  by  the  Re- 
publicans, and  in  1896  the  Presidency  itself  was  captured  by 
them,  the  House  of  Representatives  remaining  Republican 
by  a  large  majority.  In  the  elections  of  1894  and  1896  the 
Wilson  tariff  was  a  leading  issue.  At  both  elections  the 
people  voted  for  a  restoration  of  the  protective  policy. 

With  the  election  of  William  McKinley  to  the  Presiden- 
cy in  November,  1896,  public  opinion  at  once  demanded  the 
repeal  of  the  Wilson  tariff  at  the  earliest  possible  moment. 
On  March  4,  1897,  President  McKinley  was  inaugurated, 
and  on  the  6th  he  issued  a  proclamation  convening  the  Fif- 
ty-fifth Congress  in  special  session  on  the  15th.  On  the  day 
last  mentioned  Congress  met,  and  on  the  same  day  Mr.  Reed 
was  again  elected  Speaker  of  the  House  and  he  at  once  ap- 
pointed the  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means,  with  Mr.  Ding- 
ley,  of  Maine,  as  chairman.  On  the  same  day  Mr.  Dingley 
reported  a  complete  tariff  bill  to  the  House,  which  bill  had 
been  in  preparation  by  the  Republican  members  of  the  com- 
mittee since  Congress  met  in  regular  session  in  the  preced- 
ing December,  Mr.  Dingley  then  being  its  chairman.  On  the 
31st  this  bill  passed  the  House  by  a  vote  of  205  yeas  to  122 
nays.  On  April  1st  it  was  received  by  the  Senate  and  was 
at  once  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Finance,  which  com- 
mittee reported  it  back  to  the  Senate  on  May  4th,  with  a 
large  number  of  proposed  amendments.  On  July  7th  the  bill 
passed  the  Senate,  with  871  actual  amendments,  by  a  vote  of 
38  yeas  to  28  nays,  and  it  was  at  once  referred  to  a  commit- 
tee of  conference.  On  July  19th  it  was  reported  back  to  the 
House  from  this  committee,  and  on  the  20th  the  report  of 
the  conference  committee  was  adopted  by  that  body  by  a 


106  NOTES  AND   COMMENTS. 

vote  of  186  yeas  to  115  nays.  On  the  24th  the  report  was 
adopted  by  the  Senate  by  a  vote  of  40  yeas  to  30  nays.  The 
bill  was  at  once  signed  by  the  President  and  became  a  law, 
displacing  entirely  the  Wilson  tariff.  It  went  into  effect  the 
same  day. 

It  will  be  observed  by  the  reader  who  has  followed  these 
reminiscences  that  the  protective  policy  has  often  been  in 
peril  since  1870.  We  believe  that  it  now  rests  on  a  firmer 
foundation  of  popular  regard  than  ever  before  in  our  history. 
There  will  be  no  general  revision  of  the  tariff  during  the  re- 
mainder of  this  century,  and  during  this  time  the  country 
will  have  comparative  peace  from  tariff  agitation. 


CHAPTER  XII. 

ALEXANDER   HAMILTON. 

SATURDAY,  December  5,  1891,  was  the  hundredth  anni- 
versary of  the  transmission  to  the  Second  Congress  of  the 
United  States  by  Alexander  Hamilton,  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury,  of  his  celebrated  "Report  on  the  Subject  of  Man- 
ufactures," which  embodies  the  earliest  elaborate  plea  in  be- 
half of  our  protective  policy  that  our  protectionist  literature 
affords.  A  copy  of  this-able  and  unanswerable  report,  edit- 
ed by  Mathew  Carey,  and  printed  in  Philadelphia  in  1827, 
and  filling  71  pages  of  close  type,  is  before  us.  Among  the 
many  excellent  arguments  in  behalf  of  protection  which  it 
contains  we  take  at  random  one  strong  sentence :  "  When 
all  the  different  kinds  of  industry  obtain  in  a  community 
each  individual  can  find  his  proper  element  and  can  call  in- 
to activity  the  whole  vigor  of  his  nature." 

The  Second  Congress  met  in  Philadelphia  in  December, 
1791.  From  the  date  of  Hamilton's  report  until  the  pres- 
ent time  Philadelphia  has  been  the  foremost  city  in  the 
Union  in  advocating  and  defending  the  protective  policy 
which  he  so  clearly  and  so  ably  outlined  and  so  successfully 
commended  to  his  countrymen.  The  new  government  had 
started  in  1789  with  a  protective  tariff,  but  Hamilton's 
great  report  assured  the  ascendancy  of  the  protective  policy 
in  our  national  legislation  until  1816,  when  we  began  to  de- 
part from  it,  with  evil  consequences  which  Henry  Clay  has 
so  graphically  described. 


108  NOTES  AND  COMMENTS. 

It  is  a  fact  worthy  of  notice  that  Hamilton  advocated  in 
his  report  the  policy  of  granting  government  bounties  to 
aid  in  the  establishment  of  new  industries  in  our  country, 
and  that  his  recommendation  was  never  carried  into  effect 
until  exactly  one  hundred  years  after  it  was  made,  when,  un- 
der the  tariff  of  1890,  we  began  to  pay  a  bounty  for  the  pro- 
duction of  sugar.  This  bounty  provision  was  subsequently  re- 
pealed in  the  tariff  act  of  1894  and  it  has  not  since  been  re- 
enacted.  It  was  a  great  mistake.  But  the  policy  which  was 
clearly  a  mistake  in  1890  might  have  proved  to  be  an  emi- 
nently wise  policy  in  1791  if  it  had  been  carried  into  effect. 

In  Mathew  Carey's  preface  to  the  edition  of  Hamilton's 
report  which  we  have  before  us  he  says :  "  I  hope  we  shall 
live  to  see  the  day — if  we  do  not  assuredly  our  children 
will — when  medals  will  be  struck  and  monuments  erected  to 
the  memory  of  Alexander  Hamilton  ! "  But  no  medals  have 
been  struck  and  no  monuments  have  been  erected  in  mem- 
ory of  this  father  of  the  American  policy  of  protection  to 
home  industry,  except  the  small  and  timeworn  shaft  erected 
by  relatives  over  his  grave  in  Trinity  churchyard  in  New 
York.  But  Hamilton's  memory  may  yet  be  suitably  honored. 

In  a  letter  which  we  have  received  from  Hon.  John  Dal- 
zell,  a  distinguished  Representative  in  Congress  from  Penn- 
sylvania, who  has  been  a  member  of  the  Ways  and  Means 
Committee  since  1891,  that  gentleman  says  of  Hamilton : 
"  His  tariff  argument  has  never  been  added  to.  Every  tariff 
speech  in  our  history  simply  repeats  the  ideas  that  he  stated 
in  the  first  instance.  We  have  never  done  him  justice.  Jef- 
ferson is  lauded  while  Hamilton  is  neglected.  He  ought  to 
stand  a  colossal  figure  in  bronze  or  marble  in  front  of  the 
Treasury." 


CHAPTER  XIII. 

TARIFF   CONVENTIONS   IN   THE    OLDEN    TIME. 

ON  Monday,  July  30,  1827,  a  meeting  of  delegates  from 
the  States  of  Connecticut,  Delaware,  Kentucky,  Maryland, 
Massachusetts,  New  York,  New  Hampshire,  New  Jersey, 
Ohio,  Pennsylvania,  Rhode  Island,  Vermont,  and  Virginia 
convened  at  the  capitol  building  at  Harrisburg,  Pennsylva- 
nia, in  pursuance  of  a  call  issued  on  the  14th  of  May  pre- 
ceding by  the  Pennsylvania  Society  for  the  Promotion  of 
Manufactures  and  the  Mechanic  Arts.  The  convention  was 
composed  of  one  hundred  delegates.  The  names  of  some  of 
the  delegates  are  among  the  most  prominent  in  our  history. 
Connecticut  sent  Gideon  Welles ;  Massachusetts,  Abbott  Law- 
rence ;  New  York,  Francis  Granger ;  New  Hampshire,  Eze- 
kiel  Webster ;  Ohio,  Thomas  Ewing ;  Pennsylvania,  Charles 
J.  Ingersoll,  Mathew  Carey,  and  Walter  Forward ;  Rhode 
Island,  Ashur  Robbins ;  and  Vermont,  Rollin  C.  Mallary. 
The  New  York  delegation  was  numerically  the  strongest, 
embracing  eighteen  members,  and  that  of  Pennsylvania  was 
the  next  in  numerical  strength,  embracing  fifteen  members. 
Joseph  Ritner,  afterwards  Governor  of  Pennsylvania,  was  the 
president  of  the  convention.  The  convention  was  in  ses- 
sion four  days,  and  as  one  result  of  its  labors  it  adopted  a 
brief  but  practical  address  to  Congress  in  favor  of  the  pol- 
icy of  protection  to  the  then  infant  manufactures  of  the 
country.  It  was  prepared  by  a  committee  of  which  Mr.  In- 
gersoll was  chairman.  An  address  to  the  country  was  also 


110  NOTES  AND  COMMENTS. 

adopted,  which  was  prepared  mainly  by  Hezekiah  Niles,  of 
Maryland.  These  addresses  contributed  greatly  to  the  pas- 
sage of  the  eminently  wise  tariff  act  of  1828. 

On  Wednesday,  October  26, 1831,  a  general  convention  of 
the  friends  of  home  industry  assembled  at  New  York,  which 
remained  in  session  a  whole  week.  This  also  was  a  conven- 
tion of  delegates.  The  following  States  were  represented: 
Maine,  New  Hampshire,  Vermont,  Massachusetts,  Khode  Isl- 
and, Connecticut,  New  York,  New  Jersey,  Pennsylvania,  Del- 
aware, Maryland,  Virginia,  and  Ohio,  and  the  District  of 
Columbia.  Over  five  hundred  delegates  were  in  attendance. 
In  the  list  of  members  are  the  names  of  many  leading  busi- 
ness men  and  historical  personages  of  that  time.  Near  the 
top  of  the  list  we  meet  the  name  of  Samuel  Garfield,  of  New 
Hampshire.  The  best  families  in  New  England  were  repre- 
sented by  such  names  as  Alexander  H.  Everett,  Abbott  Law- 
rence, William  Appleton,  and  Samuel  Hoar,  of  Massachu- 
setts ;  Zachariah  Allen,  James  F.  Simmons,  Richard  Antho- 
ny, and  Nathan  F.  Dixon,  of  Rhode  Island  ;  and  many  oth- 
ers of  equal  eminence.  James  Tallmadge,  Peter  R.  Living- 
ston, Benjamin  B.  Howell,  Asabel  Seward,  Gurdon  Corning, 
and  Charles  H.  Morrell  were  among  the  hundred  represent- 
atives from  New  York  ;  David  Reeves  and  Thomas  Rodgers 
were  two  of  the  fifty  delegates  from  New  Jersey ;  and  S. 
V.  Merrick,  Mathew  Carey,  A.  M.  Jones,  Ellis  Lewis,  John 
J.  Borie,  James  M.  Haldeman,  Jonathan  Roberts,  J.  P. 
Wetherill,  William  Wilkins,  Walter  Forward,  and  Benjamin 
Reeves  were  among  the  hundred  delegates  from  Pennsylva- 
nia. John  P.  Kennedy  was  one  of  many  delegates  from 
Maryland.  William  Wilkins,  of  Pennsylvania,  was  the  pres- 
ident of  the  convention,  and  Hezekiah  Niles,  of  Maryland, 


TARIFF  LEGISLATION  AT  HOME.  Ill 

was  the  principal  secretary.  The  convention  was  called  to 
take  notice  of  the  proceedings  of  a  convention  of  free  trad- 
ers held  at  Philadelphia  in  September  and  October  of  the 
same  year,  and  to  reply  to  a  memorial  to  Congress  which  it 
had  adopted.  The  memorial  of  this  free  trade  convention 
was  written  by  Albert  Gallatin,  who  had  been  Secretary  of 
the  Treasury  under  Jefferson  and  Madison  and  had  held 
other  positions  of  responsibility  and  honor.  It  remonstrated 
with  a  great  deal  of  logical  force  and  with  no  little  sophistry 
against  the  continuance  of  the  protective  tariff  of  1828. 

The  New  York  convention  appointed  committees  to  report 
on  the  leading  industries  of  the  country,  showing  the  bene- 
ficial effects  upon  each  o£  them  of  the  protective  policy  as 
it  had  been  embodied  in  the  tariff  acts  of  1824  and  1828. 
These  committees  submitted  very  interesting  reports,  some 
of  which  were  prepared  with  great  care.  Two  other  com- 
mittees were  appointed  to  prepare  respectively  a  memorial 
to  Congress  and  an  address  to  the  country.  The  memorial, 
which  was  written  by  Alexander  H.  Everett,  was  a  complete 
answer  to  Mr.  Gallatin's  assumptions,  and  was  in  all  respects 
a  profound  and  masterly  presentation  of  the  wisdom  of 
protection.  But  political,  or  rather  sectional,  considerations 
were  too  powerful  at  this  time  for  the  friends  of  home  in- 
dustry, and  in  February,  1833,  Mr.  Clay  introduced  his  com- 
promise tariff  bill,  which  gave  away  all  that  had  been  gain- 
ed in  the  tariffs  of  1824  and  1828.  It  was  not  until  1842 
that  the  country  again  returned  to  the  protective  policy, 
which  was  in  force  only  until  1846. 

The  enactment  of  the  revenue  tariff  of  1846  was  attend- 
ed with  such  disastrous  consequences  to  the  iron  trade  of 
the  whole  country  that  vigorous  protests  against  its  longer 


112  NOTES  AND  COMMENTS. 

continuance  were  inevitable.  A  convention  of  dissatisfied 
iron  manufacturers,  composed  of  about  160  delegates  from 
New  York,  New  Jersey,  Pennsylvania,  Ohio,  Kentucky,  Vir- 
ginia, and  Illinois,  met  "  in  the  new  court-house  "  at  Pitts- 
burgh, on  Wednesday,  November  21,  1849,  and  continued  in 
session  for  three  days.  The  convention  was  presided  over  by 
Hon.  James  Rodgers,  of  Ohio.  Among  the  prominent  per- 
sons who  were  present  and  participated  in  the  proceedings 
were  Hon.  Charles  Shaler  and  Hon.  Andrew  Stewart,  but 
the  convention  was  almost  wholly  composed  of  practical  iron 
manufacturers.  Resolutions  were  adopted  which  declared 
that  the  tariff  of  1846  had  proved  to  be  inadequate  as  a 
protection  against  foreign  competition  in  the  manufacture  of 
iron  and  steel,  and  protesting  against  its  general  ad  valorem 
character.  The  resolutions  also  bore  testimony  to  the  wide- 
spread depression  which  then  existed  in  the  agricultural  in- 
dustry of  the  country,  which,  it  was  declared,  was  largely 
dependent  for  its  prosperity  upon  the  iron  industry  and  oth- 
er manufacturing  industries.  Congress  was  called  upon  to 
grant  relief  by  revising  the  tariff  in  the  interest  of  home  in- 
dustry. A  special  committee  was  appointed  to  prepare  a 
suitable  memorial  to  Congress.  The  proceedings  of  the  con- 
vention were  published  in  the  Pittsburgh  Gazette. 

On  December  6,  1849,  a  call  was  issued  by  a  number  of 
iron  manufacturers  for  a  convention  to  meet  at  Philadelphia 
on  December  20th,  "  to  appeal  to  Congress,  without  distinc- 
tion of  party,  for  the  preservation  of  a  great  American  in- 
terest." A  numerously  attended  convention,  composed  chiefly 
of  Pennsylvania  iron  manufacturers,  met  in  the  chamber  of 
the  Board  of  Trade  on  the  day  mentioned.  Thomas  Cham- 
bers, of  the  Montour  Iron  Works,  was  chosen  chairman  of 


TARIFF  LEGISLATION  AT  HOME.  113 

the  convention.  The  proceedings  of  this  convention  have, 
been  preserved  in  book  form,  and  they  show  that  the  men 
who  participated  in  its  deliberations  were  not  only  greatly 
in  earnest  but  that  they  were  also  men  of  ability  and  force. 
A  remarkably  able  memorial  to  Congress,  written  by  Stephen 
Colwell,  was  adopted.  A  report  on  the  statistics  of  the  iron 
trade  at  home  and  abroad  was  presented  by  Charles  E. 
Smith,  which  displayed  great  research  in  a  field  which  at 
that  time  had  been  but  little  explored.  Mr.  Smith  subse- 
quently prepared  a  detailed  statement  of  the  condition  of  the 
iron  industry  of  Pennsylvania,  which  was  completed  on  June 
1,  1850,  and  is  bound  up  with  the  proceedings  of  the  con- 
vention. This  statement  showed  by  name  the  furnaces  and 
other  iron  enterprises  in  the  State  which  had  been  wrecked 
by  the  tariff  of  1846.  It  was  the  result  of  a  personal  "  tour 
through  the  State." 

Bound  up  with  the  proceedings  also  is  a  letter  addressed 
on  December  26,  1849,  to  the  New  York  Journal  of  Com- 
merce by  Cooper  &  Hewitt,  setting  forth  with  great  ability 
the  resources  of  the  country  for  the  production  of  iron  and 
the  injury  that  had  been  inflicted  upon  this  industry  by  the 
tariff  of  1846.  Mr.  Abram  S.  Hewitt  was  a  delegate  to  the 
convention  and  a  member  of  the  committee  on  resolutions. 
There  was  also  bound  up  with  the  proceedings  a  paper  by 
Henry  C.  Carey  on  "  The  Harmony  of  Interests,"  in  which 
the  relation  of  the  iron  industry  to  other  industries  was 
thoroughly  discussed. 

The  resolutions  adopted  by  the  convention  stated  that  "  a 
crisis  has  arisen  in  the  iron  business  which  calls  for  the  im- 
mediate revision  of  the  revenue  laws,"  and  called  upon  Con- 
gress to  grant  relief  by  increasing  duties.  A  "  general  com- 


114  NOTES  AND  COMMENTS. 

mittee,"  to  further  the  objects  of  the  convention,  was  ap- 
pointed. It  does  not  appear,  however,  that  either  this  con- 
vention or  the  one  held  at  Pittsburgh  a  few  weeks  previously 
made  any  serious  impression  upon  Congress.  The  tariff  of 
1846  was  not  disturbed. 

A  national  tariff  convention  met  at  the  Cooper  Institute, 
New  York,  on  Tuesday,  November  29,  1881,  and  continued 
in  session  during  the  following  day.  This  convention  was 
called  by  a  committee  of  active  protectionists,  in  response  to 
a  widespread  sentiment  in  favor  of  a  closer  union  of  the 
protectionists  of  the  whole  country.  The  call  fixed  the  num- 
ber of  delegates  to  the  convention  at  six  hundred,  allotted 
as  equitably  as  possible  among  the  different  trades  and  in- 
dustries, and  nearly  the  whole  number  were  present  at  the 
meeting  of  the  convention.  Peter  Cooper,  who  was  then  in 
his  91st  year,  was  one  of  the  delegates  and  made  a  short  ad- 
dress. Hon.  George  B.  Loriug,  United  States  Commissioner 
of  Agriculture,  was  the  temporary  chairman  of  the  conven- 
tion, and  Hon.  Warner  Miller,  United  States  Senator  from 
New  York,  was  the  permanent  chairman.  Among  the  vice 
presidents  were  Hon.  B.  F.  Jones,  of  Pittsburgh,  and  Hon. 
Columbus  Delano,  of  Ohio.  Both  the  presiding  officers  de- 
livered elaborate  addresses  upon  taking  the  chair.  A  letter 
was  read  from  Hon.  James  G.  Blaine,  Secretary  of  State, 
which  was  written  in  Mr.  Elaine's  characteristically  happy 
style,  and  in  which  he  first  hinted  at  the  reciprocity  policy 
that  he  afterwards  succeeded  in  engrafting  upon  the  tariff 
legislation  of  1890. 

Addresses  were  delivered  by  Hon.  William  McKinley,  of 
Ohio  ;  Hon.  William  D.  Kelley,  Joseph  Wharton,  and  James 
Dobson,  of  Philadelphia ;  John  H.  Bicketson  and  John 


TARIFF  LEGISLATION  AT  HOME.  115 

Jarrett,  of  Pittsburgh  ;  Wellington  Smith  and  Theodore  C. 
Bates,  of  Massachusetts ;  Hon.  J.  B.  Grinnell,  of  Iowa ; 
Hon.  J.  Hart  Brewer,  of  New  Jersey ;  John  Roach,  of  New 
York ;  Giles  B.  Stebbins,  of  Michigan ;  Hon.  W.  S.  Shal- 
lenberger,  of  Pennsylvania ;  Hon.  Edward  T.  Johnson,  of 
Indiana  ;  Col.  John  Scriven,  of  Georgia,  and  many  others. 
Judge  Kelley's  address  dealt  chiefly  with  our  internal  reve- 
nue system  and  its  relation  to  the  industries  of  the  country. 
He  favored  the  total  abolition  of  internal  taxes  at  the  earli- 
est day  possible.  Mr.  Wharton's  address  was  mainly  a  plea 
in  favor  of  the  policy  of  revising  the  tariff  by  a  commission 
of  experts,  to  be  authorized  by  Congress  and  appointed  by 
the  President.  Mr.  Grinnell,  who  was  for  many  years  a 
Representative  in  Congress  from  Iowa,  also  supported  the 
project  of  a  tariff  commission.  In  the  introduction  to  his 
address  he  stated  that  he  had  at  home  a  paper  (we  presume 
he  meant  a  letter)  which  contained  the  "  commission  "  that 
Horace  Greeley  once  gave  to  him — "  Young  man,  go  West." 
Mr.  Jarrett,  who  was  at  the  time  the  president  of  the  Amal- 
gamated Association  of  Iron  and  Steel  Workers,  spoke  for 
the  workingmen  of  the  country,  explaining  their  interest  in 
the  cause  of  protection  to  home  industry.  Mr.  Roach's  ad- 
dress was  devoted  to  the  necessity  of  extending  our  foreign 
commerce,  and  he  was  followed  upon  the  same  theme  by  Mr. 
Johnson.  In  all  forty-six  addresses  were  delivered  before 
the  convention  and  five  papers  were  read.  Mr.  A.  H.  Jones, 
of  Philadelphia,  read  a  valuable  paper  concerning  the  chem- 
ical industry. 

A  committee  on  an  address  and  resolutions  which  should 
embody  the  views  of  the  convention  was  appointed,  and  of 
this  committee  Cyrus  Elder,  of  Johnstown,  Pennsylvania, 


116  NOTES  AND   COMMENTS. 

was  chairman.  The  committee  presented  an  exhaustive  re- 
port, written  by  Mr.  Elder,  which  was  adopted.  One  of  its 
leading  features  was  a  strong  indorsement  of  the  suggestion 
that  the  tariff  should  be  revised  by  a  commission.  A  com- 
mittee was  appointed  to  lay  this  report  before  both  branches 
of  Congress,  which  was  afterwards  done. 

To  the  influence  exerted  by  this  convention  may  be  cred- 
ited the  passage  during  the  succeeding  session  of  Congress  of 
an  act  providing  for  the  creation  of  a  Tariff  Commission, 
which  was  appointed  by  President  Arthur  in  1882,  and  which 
subsequently,  during  the  same  year,  made  a  report  to  Con- 
gress, accompanied  by  a  draft  of  a  tariff  bill.  The  proceed- 
ings of  the  convention  were  published  in  book  form.  The 
volume  comprises  one  of  the  most  valuable  compilations  of 
protective  tariff  literature  to  be  found  anywhere. 

The  conventions  of  1827,  1831,  and  1849  were  composed 
of  representatives  of  all  the  political  parties  that  were  in 
existence  when  they  were  held,  and  in  all  of  these  conven- 
tions there  were  no  more  earnest  advocates  of  the  protective 
policy  than  the  Democratic  delegates  who  participated  in 
their  deliberations.  But  it  is  noticeable  that  in  the  conven- 
tion of  1881  there  were  very  few  Democrats,  nearly  all  of 
the  delegates  being  Republicans. 

The  American  Iron  Association  was  organized  at  Phila- 
delphia on  March  6,  1855.  The  object  of  this  Association 
was  the  promotion  of  the  mutual  interests  of  American  iron 
manufacturers,  trade  information  and  statistics  being  of  first 
importance.  Hon.  George  N.  Eckert,  of  Reading,  Pennsyl- 
vania, was  chosen  president ;  Gen.  James  Irvin  and  John  H. 
Towne,  vice  presidents ;  Charles  E.  Smith,  treasurer ;  and 
J.  P.  Lesley,  secretary.  The  office  of  the  Association  was 


TARIFF  LEGISLATION  AT  HOME.  117 

established  at  Philadelphia.  The  Association  thus  organized 
continued  in  active  existence  until  1859,  having  a  life  of 
four  years.  On  November  16, 1864,  the  American  Iron  and 
Steel  Association  was  organized  at  Philadelphia,  and  it  has 
continued  in  active  existence  ever  since,  with  its  office  also 
in  Philadelphia.  A  leading  object  in  establishing  this  Associ- 
ation was  the  promotion  of  the  tariff  interests  of  the  whole 
American  iron  trade,  but  another  leading  object  was  the  pro- 
motion of  the  protective  policy  for  the  benefit  of  all  the  in- 
dustries of  the  country.  It  is  the  oldest  tariff  organization 
in  the  United  States.  It  has  held  many  public  meetings  for 
the  consideration  of  tariff  questions,  but  further  reference  in 
these  pages  to  these  meetings  or  to  any  of  the  work  of  the 
Association  is  not  necessary.  Its  first  officers  were  as  fol- 
lows :  President,  Captain  E.  B.  Ward,  of  Detroit,  Michigan  ; 
vice  presidents,  Samuel  J.  Reeves,  Abram  S.  Hewitt,  James 
M.  Cooper,  Charles  S.  Wood,  and  Joseph  H.  Scranton  ;  treas- 
urer, Charles  Wheeler ;  and  secretary,  Robert  H.  Lamborn. 
Mr.  Hewitt  has  remained  a  vice  president  ever  since.  It  is, 
however,  but  just  to  say  of  this  gentleman  that  he  has  not 
always  approved  of  the  tariff  policy  of  the  Association. 

A  convention  of  the  iron  manufacturers  of  Maryland  was 
held  in  1849  to  protest  against  the  tariff  of  1846,  and  a  re- 
port upon  the  depressed  condition  of  the  iron  industries  of 
that  State  was  adopted,  but  further  particulars  of  this  con- 
vention are  not  accessible. 


CHAPTER  XIV. 

WHY  THE  SOUTHERN  CONFEDERACY  FAILED. 

THE  following  provision  is  contained  in  the  Constitution 
of  the  Confederate  States  of  America,  which  was  adopted  at 
Montgomery,  Alabama,  on  March  11,  1861.  It  will  be  seen 
that  it  prohibits  the  levying  of  protective  duties. 

"  SEC.  8.  Congress  shall  have  power  to  lay  and  collect 
taxes,  duties,  imposts,  and  excises  for  revenue  necessary  to 
pay  the  debts,  provide  for  the  common  defense,  and  carry 
on  the  government  of  the  Confederate  States.  But  no  boun- 
ties shall  be  granted  from  the  treasury  nor  shall  any  duties 
or  taxes  on  importations  from  foreign  nations  be  laid  to  pro- 
mote or  foster  any  branch  of  industry." 

That  the  South  seceded  partly  that  it  might  establish  free 
trade  is  frankly  confessed  by  a  distinguished  native  of  South 
Carolina.  In  the  course  of  an  open  letter  to  the  chairman 
of  the  executive  committee  of  the  Free  Trade  Association  of 
South  Carolina,  written  on  the  23d  of  April,  1886,  the  Hon. 
George  D.  Tillman,  who  served  as  a  private  in  the  Confed- 
erate army  from  early  in  1862  to  the  close  of  the  war  and 
was*  subsequently  a  Democratic  member  of  Congress,  said : 
"  Shall  we  of  the  Palmetto  State  always  be  self-idolatrous 
Bourbons,  never  forgetting,  never  learning,  anything  ?  Was 
it  not  our  intemperate  zeal  for  free  trade  that  led  to  nullifi- 
cation, and  was  it  not  as  much  to  enjoy  free  trade  as  to 
protect  slavery  that  South  Carolina  seceded  in  1860  ? " 

In  a  leading  editorial  the  New  Orleans  Daily  City  Item 


WHY  THE  CONFEDERACY  FAILED.  119 

discussed  a  few  years  ago  the  economic  causes  which  contrib- 
uted to  the  failure  of  the  Southern  Confederacy.  It  said : 
"  With  the  South  was  courage,  conviction,  and  unparalleled 
strategic  ability  in  the  field.  There  was  a  limited  stock  of 
mechanical  supplies  on  hand.  There  was  the  right  to  sell  in 
the  dearest  and  buy  in  the  cheapest  markets  of  the  world. 
So  long  as  these  supplies  continued  and  this  trade  was  free 
the  Confederacy  could  arm  and  equip  its  armies  and  even 
import  comforts  and  luxuries.  Without  shipping  or  sailors, 
or  general  commercial  credits  abroad,  free  trade  soon  ceased 
to  be  a  sufficient  reliance.  As  there  were  no  manufactures 
adequate  to  supply  the  rapid  consumption  of  goods  imported 
before  the  war  the  priyations  of  a  highly  civilized  people 
were  very  grievous,  while  the  suffering  of  the  soldiers  in 
camp  or  on  the  march  was  an  element  of  depression  and 
positive  weakness.  In  this  positive  deficiency  the  occasional 
arrival  of  a  blockade  runner  or  capture  of  Yankee  stores 
was  an  insufficient  compensation.  The  disparity  in  resources 
told  like  the  avoirdupois  of  the  slugger  against  the  pluck 
and  science  of  the  light  weight.  While  such  was  the  desti- 
tution of  the  South  the  condition  of  the  North  was  never 
better."  It  was  better,  continued  the  City  Item,  because  the 
North  had  developed  its  manufactures. 

A  similar  Southern  tribute  to  the  excellence  of  our  pro- 
tective policy,  and  to  its  influence  in  blighting  the  hopes  of 
the  friends  of  the  Southern  Confederacy,  was  expressed  a 
few  years  ago  by  General  Richard  Taylor,  of  Louisiana,  a 
Confederate  officer  of  distinction,  in  a  review  of  the  war 
which  was  expected  to  establish  free  trade  as  a  means  of 
prosperity  in  the  South.  General  Taylor  says:  "We  made 
two  great  mistakes.  Had  we  avoided  them  we  should  have 


120  NOTES  AND  COMMENTS. 

conquered  you.  The  first  was  that  we  did  not  substantially 
destroy  the  protective  features  of  the  tariff  in  the  winter 
session  of  1857-8  by  an  act  which  provided  a  rapid  sliding 
scale  to  free  trade.  As  a  Democratic  measure  we  could  have 
passed  such  a  law  and  held  it  tight  on  you  till  it  closed  the 
furnaces,  workshops,  woolen  and  cotton  mills,  and  steel  and 
bar  iron  works  of  the  whole  North  and  West,  and  scattered 
your  workmen  over  the  prairies  and  Territories.  When  the 
war  was  ready  for  you  you  would  not  have  been  ready  for 
the  war.  You  could  not  have  armed  and  equipped  and  put 
in  the  field  a  large  army  nor  built  a  navy.  You  would 
have  been  without  supplies,  machinery,  and  workmen,  and 
you  would  have  been  without  money  and  credit.  Our  second 
mistake  was  in  withdrawing  our  Senators  and  Representa- 
tives from  your  Congress.  .  .  How  we  blundered  in  these 
two  respects  I  can  not  understand,  except  upon  the  hypoth- 
esis of  an  overruling  Providence."  As  we  have  previously 
shown,  the  tariff  that  was  in  force  just  before  the  war  was 
not  a  protective  measure,  but  manufactures  had  been  devel- 
oped in  the  North  from  the  foundation  of  the  Government, 
while  in  the  South  they  had  been  neglected. 

We  are  glad  to  add  to  the  above  that  the  South  is  now 
realizing  in  its  increased  attention  to  its  native  resources 
and  to  manufacturing  enterprises  many  of  the  benefits  of 
our  protective  policy.  In  the  near  future  it  is  destined  to 
enjoy  still  more  of  the  blessings  which  follow  a  diversifica- 
tion of  industrial  pursuits. 


CHAPTER   XV. 

PROTECTION   IS  NOT   MONOPOLY. 

IT  is  a  standing  argument  with  those  who  oppose  a  pro- 
tective tariff  that  it  creates  and  fosters  monopolies.  A  mo- 
nopoly is  defined  by  Webster  to  be  "  the  sole  power  of  deal- 
ing in  any  species  of  goods,  or  of  dealing  with  a  country  or 
market,  obtained  either  by  engrossing  the  articles  in  market 
by  purchase  or  by  a  license  from  government ;  sole  permis- 
sion and  power  to  deaL$  exclusive  command  or  possession." 

Monopolies  are  not  necessarily  evils,  and  a  great  deal  of 
the  indiscriminate  denunciation  they  receive  is  unmerited. 
The  United  States  Government  enjoys  a  monopoly  of  carry- 
ing the  mails,  but  it  will  not  be  contended  that  this  serv- 
ice would  be  better  performed  if  it  were  in  the  hands  of 
private  individuals  or  competing  companies.  The  Pennsyl- 
vania Railroad  Company  enjoys  a  monopoly  of  transporting 
freight  and  passengers  through  Pennsylvania  between  Phil- 
adelphia and  Pittsburgh  and  intermediate  points,  but  it  does 
it-  work  well,  and  no  person  will  contend  that  the  State  of 
Pennsylvania  and  the  country  at  large  would  be  as  far  ad- 
vanced as  they  are  if  the  charter  of  the  company  had  never 
been  granted.  Every  railroad  and  other  company  which  is 
chartered  with  special  privileges  is  a  monopoly,  and  most 
companies  so  chartered  have  promoted  the  public  welfare, 
even  when  they  have  conspicuously  promoted  their  own  in- 
terests. Every  street  railway  is  by  force  of  circumstances  a 
monopoly,  and  so  is  every  company  that  carries  freight  and 


122  NOTES  AND   COMMENTS. 

passengers  across  a  river ;  so  is  every  turnpike  company. 
Pullman's  Palace  Car  Company  is  a  monopoly  on  most  of 
our  railroads,  and  whether  its  service  be  good  or  bad  all  of 
us  patronize  it  when  we  go  away  from  home  because  we  can 
not  help  ourselves.  The  Adams  Express  Company  is  a  mo- 
nopoly. The  Western  Union  Telegraph  Company  is  a  mo- 
nopoly which  has  virtually  overcome  all  opposition  and  now 
charges  the  public  what  it  pleases  for  the  service  it  renders. 
The  owners  of  our  anthracite  coal  fields  are  monopolists,  be- 
cause they  own  the  only  anthracite  coal  fields  of  consequence 
in  the  country.  But  not  one  of  these  monopolies  has  been 
created  by  the  tariff  legislation  of  Congress. 

There  are  giant  monopolies  in  this  country  which  con- 
spicuously serve  personal  and  selfish  interests.  The  Stand- 
ard Oil  Company  is  an  example  of  this  class.  It  controls 
the  great  petroleum  industry  of  the  country  and  apparent- 
ly aims  to  own  it  all.  Tariff  legislation  neither  created  nor 
maintains  it.  But  this  monopoly  has  greatly  cheapened  the 
price  of  petroleum  to  all  consumers. 

We  have  mentioned  monopolies  which  are  great  public 
blessings  and  other  monopolies  which  serve  the  public  but 
which  draw  largely  upon  its  patience  and  often  offend  its 
sense  of  justice.  There  are  other  monopolies  which  ought 
not  to  exist.  But  none  of  these  are  the  monopolies  to  which 
the  opponents  of  our  protective  policy  refer. 

What  monopolies  has  protection  created,  and  where  are 
they  to  be  found  ?  All  the  leading  productive  industries  of 
the  country  are  more  or  less  protected  by  tariff  legislation 
against  foreign  competition ;  our  agricultural,  mining,  and 
manufacturing  industries  are  so  protected.  Which  one  of 
these  industries  nurses  a  monopoly  ?  Which  branch  of 


PROTECTION  IS  NOT  MONOPOLY.  123 

them  is  in  the  exclusive  possession  of  any  set  of  men  ?  Our 
patent  laws  recognize  the  principle  of  exclusive  ownership 
in  an  invention,  but  our  protective  policy  grants  exclusive 
privileges  to  none.  Protection  has  never  created  or  main- 
tained even  one  monopoly  in  this  country.  On  the  contrary, 
the  very  intention  of  protection  is  to  encourage  enterprise 
and  investments  by  many  persons,  so  that  industries  may  be 
developed  by  many  hands  and  competition  created.  All  this 
is  the  exact  opposite  of  monopoly. 

Combinations  of  producers  to  restrict  production  or  to 
raise  prices,  which  may  or  may  not  be  justifiable,  and  which 
are  of  the  essence  of  monopoly,  are  no  more  a  consequence 
of  protection  than  are  combinations  among  workingmen  to 
raise  wages.  Combinations  of  producers  have  been  as  com- 
mon in  free  trade  England  as  in  our  own  country.  They 
are  a  product  of  human  nature  and  not  of  any  economic 
policy.  Nor  has  the  tariff  had  anything  to  do  with  our 
wheat  rings,  pork  rings,  lard  rings,  and  the  whisky  ring. 
The  tariff  is  not  responsible  for  any  of  them.  Nor  is  it  re- 
sponsible for  railroad  pools  or  for  any  other  combinations  of 
mutual  interests. 

There  has  been  one  monopoly  which  was  created  and  long 
maintained  by  American  tariff  legislation,  but  that  legisla- 
tion was  not  adopted  as  a  part  of  our  protective  policy, 
nor  was  the  monopoly  referred  to  to  be  found  in  the  United 
States.  The  monopoly  we  have  in  mind  was  the  manufac- 
ture of  tinplates  for  sale  in  the  United  States,  and  it  was 
to  be  found  in  Great  Britain.  It  was  maintained  down  to 
1890  by  the  persistent  refusal  of  the  American  Congress  to 
impose  a  protective  duty  which  would  enable  us  to  make  our 
own  tinplates,  which,  as  everybody  knows,  are  almost  en- 


124  NOTES  AND  COMMENTS. 

tirely  composed  of  iron  or  steel.  As  a  result  of  this  refusal 
all  our  tinplates  were  made  in  Great  Britain  until  1890,  for 
which  we  annually  paid  to  that  country  about  twenty  mil- 
lion dollars.  This  large  sum  would  have  been  kept  at  home 
if  we  could  have  had  legislation  that  would  have  been  hos- 
tile to  this  British  monopoly.  It  was  destroyed  for  all  time 
by  the  McKinley  tariff  of  1890. 


CHAPTER  XVI. 

ABANDONED  NEW  ENGLAND  FARMS. 

THE  free  trade  jeremiads  a  few  years  ago  about  the  de- 
cline of  agriculture  in  New  England  as  a  result  of  protec- 
tion were  very  effectively  answered  by  protectionists,  who 
showed  that  there  had  been  no  decline  in  the  prices  receiv- 
ed for  New  England  agricultural  products ;  that  only  stony 
and  hilly  farms  had  been  abandoned ;  that  there  was  noth- 
ing unnatural  or  unreasonable  in  wide-awake  New  England 
people  abandoning  these  forbidding  and  unproductive  farms 
and  securing  better  farms  in  the  Great  West ;  and  that, 
finally,  there  was  a  marked  tendency  all  over  this  country 
to  leave  the  farm  and  crowd  into  the  towns  and  cities. 

But  this  cry  about  abandoned  New  England  farms,  un- 
fortunately for  the  argument  which  was  associated  with  it, 
that  protection  had  caused  their  abandonment,  was  not  new. 
It  was  heard  many  years  ago,  when  this  country  did  not 
have  a  protective  tariff  or  the  semblance  of  one,  namely,  in 
the  years  when  we  were  living  under  the  Walker  tariff  of 
1846  and  the  Guthrie  tariff  of  1857,  both  revenue  meas- 
ures, and  revenue  measures  only,  the  latter  remaining  in 
force  until  it  was  succeeded  by  the  Morrill  tariff  of  1861. 

In  the  debate  on  the  Tariff  Commission  bill  in  the  House 
of  Representatives  in  1882  Mr.  Carlisle,  of  Kentucky,  said 
that  there  never  has  been  a  period  of  such  general  pros- 
perity and  growth  in  this  or  any  other  country  as  that 
which  extended  from  1850  to  1860,  when  the  Walker  and 


126  NOTES  AND   COMMENTS. 

Guthrie  tariffs  were  in  force.  The  distinguished  Kentucky 
statesman  surely  could  not  have  had  in  mind  the  condition 
of  New  England  agriculture  during  the  period  of  Avhich  he 
spoke.  We  are  indebted  to  Bradstreet's  for  February  7, 
1891,  for  the  following  bit  of  New  England  history,  which 
illustrates  the  condition  of  New  England's  industries  in  Mr. 
Carlisle's  golden  age.  The  paper  mentioned  states  that  a 
gentleman  of  Franklin  county,  Massachusetts,  discovered  in 
1890  a  copy  of  an  address  delivered  by  his  father  to  the 
farmers  of  Colerain  in  1857  or  1858,  in  which  he  said : 

"  I  have  selected  for  my  subject  this  evening  '  The  decline 
of  the  rural  population  of  New  England,  of  Franklin  coun- 
ty, of  Colerain  in  particular,'  and  I  shall  come  to  the  con- 
clusion, though  reluctantly,  that  they  have  seen  their  best 
days.  I  need  not  waste  your  time  by  reciting  voluminous 
statistics  to  prove  this  decline.  Every  intelh'gent  man  and 
woman  sees  it,  and  there  is  not  a  public  speaker  but  refers 
to  it,  deprecates  it,  and  offers  his  antidote.  You  havte  only 
to  look  before  you  to  see  it.  ...  Look  over  this  town 
and  see  the  once  expensive  private  dwelh'ngs  going  to  ruin 
and  into  strange  hands.  They  show  that  far  back  a  high 
order  of  architecture  existed  here,  and  that  a  wealthy  and 
prosperous  set  of  farmers  and  mechanics  occupied  them. 
They  are  now  in  decay.  The  same  thing  can  be  seen,  in  a 
greater  or  less  degree,  in  most  of  the  rural  districts  of  New 
England.  Where  is  that  long  line  of  intelligent  mechanics, 
with  their  half  dozen  apprentices  and  journeymen  each,  that 
were  here  ?  All  are  gone.  The  assessors'  books  show  that 
the  stock  in  Colerain  has  fallen  off  one-half  in  thirty  years, 
and  the  farming  inhabitants  one-third,  and  it  is  still  more 
glaring  in  some  of  the  neighboring  towns." 


ABANDONED  NEW  ENGLAND  FARMS.  127 

This  address  embodies  precisely  the  sort  of  complaints 
which  free  traders  have  recently  made.  But  there  is  this 
difference  in  the  conditions  prevailing  in  New  England  forty 
years  ago  and  now :  then  low  duties  and  Canadian  recipro- 
city undoubtedly  affected  injuriously  not  only  New  Eng- 
land's agriculture  but  also  all  its  varied  industries ;  now 
New  England  is  prosperous  under  protection  beyond  all 
previous  experience. 


CHAPTER    XVII. 

CHEAPENING   THE   NECESSARIES   OF   LIFE. 

SELFISHNESS  and  the  free  trader  becloud  the  question  of 
cheap  prices.  The  mechanic  who  is  selfish  wants  a  high 
price  for  his  skill  and  labor  but  is  not  distressed  if  he  can 
buy  all  the  products  of  the  farm  at  very  low  prices.  Upon 
the  other  hand  the  farmer  who  is  selfish  wants  high  prices 
for  his  wheat  and  corn,  his  cattle  and  hogs,  his  potatoes  and 
apples,  but  he  insists  that  trace  chains,  blankets,  clothing, 
farm  implements,  and  everything  else  which  he  does  not  pro- 
duce shall  be  sold  to  him  at  low  prices,  and  the  lower  the 
prices  the  better  he  is  pleased.  The  professional  man  who 
is  a  free  trader  and  the  non-producer  who  lives  on  a  fixed 
salary  or  a  fixed  income  of  any  kind  want  everything  cheap 
— the  products  of  the  farm  and  the  products  of  the  shop. 
All  of  the  demand  for  cheapness  is  of  the  character  we  have 
described.  It  would  not  be  worthy  of  any  notice  but  for 
the  efforts  of  demagogues  to  magnify  it  into  a  political  issue. 

The  free  trade  propagandist,  who  believes  that  cheapness 
is  the  chief  good,  can  have  no  real  sympathy  with  either  the 
farmer  or  the  mechanic,  for  he  must  know  that  the  prod- 
ucts of  the  labor  of  both  must  command  good  prices  or  they 
can  not  themselves  be  well  rewarded  for  that  labor.  His 
appeals  for  cheapness,  therefore,  logically  imply  low  wages 
and  cheap  men.  He  evades  this  conclusion,  however,  by  so 
framing  his  appeals  that  they  are  never  comprehensive  of 
the  whole  community.  He  endeavors  rather  to  set  class 


CHEAPENING   THE  NECESSARIES  OF  LIFE.        129 

against  class.  He  tells  the  farmer  that  he  pays  too  much 
for  his  trace  chains,  his  blankets,  his  clothing,  and  his  farm 
implements,  and  he  tells  the  mechanic  and  the  manufacturer 
that  the  wool  which  the  farm  produces  should  be  cheaper 
than  it  is,  even  if  it  should  come  from  abroad.  This  is 
what  Mr.  Cleveland  did  in  his  famous  message  of  1887.  The 
teachings  of  that  message  and  Mr.  Cleveland's  other  public 
utterances  on  economic  questions  greatly  contributed  to  the 
building  up  of  the  Populist  party,  which  was  at  the  outset 
but  little  else  than  the  selfish  movement  of  a  class. 

If  the  selfishness  to  which  the  free  trader  appeals  were 
the  governing  motive  of  all  men  this  would  be  a  sorry 
world  to  live  in.  But/ft  is  not  and  can  not  be.  Unfortu- 
nately for  the  mission  of  the  free  trader  the  people  of  this 
country  who  regard  individual  and  class  selfishness  as  a  car- 
dinal virtue  are  not  in  a  majority  or  likely  to  be.  If  indi- 
vidual and  class  selfishness  could  dictate  the  economic  policy 
of  the  United  States  next  year  or  the  next  it  would  soon 
bring  its  own  punishment.  Individuals  and  classes  would 
prey  upon  one  another.  Prosperity  would  vanish  and  chaos 
would  come.  Something  approximating  this  condition  oc- 
curred in  the  period  from  1893  to  1897,  when  Mr.  Cleve- 
land's theories  were  more  or  less  in  force. 

Yet  there  is  a  cheapness  which  may  be  had  without  de- 
grading labor  or  setting  class  against  class.  It  is  the  cheap- 
ness which  results  from  a  diversification  of  industries  and 
the  consequent  employment  of  all  the  faculties  of  the  hu- 
man mind  and  all  the  aptitudes  of  the  human  hand.  With 
every  man  profitably  employed  in  doing  that  which  he  can 
do  best  it  must  follow  that  mechanical  skill  will  be  perfect- 
ed and  invention  stimulated,  so  that  cheapness  will  come 


130  NOTES  AND   COMMENTS. 

from  an  increase  of  power  in  converting  raw  materials  into 
finished  products.  This  is  precisely  what  happened  in  this 
country  during  the  years  which  followed  the  passage  of  the 
Morrill  tariff  of  March  2, 1861,  and  it  is  precisely  what  was 
denied  to  us  during  the  time  when  we  had  a  revenue  tariff 
prior  to  1861.  The  good  results  of  this  method  of  cheapen- 
ing products  continued  with  us  even  through  the  Cleveland 
depression.  The  inventive  genius  and  the  mechanical  skill 
of  our  people  have  been  so  wonderfully  developed  since  1861 
that  we  now  rank  with  the  most  advanced  of  all  the  na- 
tions in  the  perfection  of  our  mechanical  processes  and  in 
the  excellence  of  our  products.  And  how  greatly  have  we 
cheapened  these  products !  If  we  have  not  yet  succeeded  in 
cheapening  some  manufactured  products  as  much  as  they 
have  been  cheapened  abroad  it  is  because  we  have  paid  high- 
er wages  to  our  workingmen  ;  we  have  not  cheapened  flesh 
and  blood  to  the  European  level. 

Mr.  Cleveland  and  those  who  agree  with  him  in  demand- 
ing cheaper  and  still  cheaper  goods,  and  who  really  consti- 
tute themselves  public  enemies  by  their  efforts  to  set  class 
against  class  in  this  country,  completely  and  deliberately  ig- 
nore the  cheapening  effects  of  the  protective  policy  against 
which  they  persistently  declaim.  They  never  tell  the  farm- 
ers who  listen  to  them  how  much  trace  chains,  and  blank- 
ets, and  clothing,  and  farm  implements  have  been  cheapened 
during  the  last  thirty  or  forty  years.  They  never  tell  any 
of  their  hearers  how  much  steel  rails  and  all  iron  and  steel 
products,  glassware,  pottery,  carpets,  furniture,  and  textile 
fabrics  have  been  cheapened  in  that  period,  nor  how  much 
more  of  any  manufactured  product  a  dollar  will  now  buy 
than  it  would  have  bought  when  we  were  compelled  to  buy 


CHEAPENING   THE  NECESSARIES  OF  LIFE.        131 

it  from  a  foreign  manufacturer.  Everything  that  we  now 
make  in  this  country  is  very  much  cheaper  than  before  our 
protective  policy  was  firmly  established  in  1861.  All  the 
cheapness  of  manufactures  that  we  enjoy  is  the  result  of 
protection ;  none  of  it  can  be  credited  to  a  tariff  for  reve- 
nue only. 

But  cheapness  is  not  the  chief  good  of  our  people,  even 
when  secured  as  the  result  of  our  protective  policy.  Em- 
ployment is  of  first  importance  to  the  mechanic ;  a  market 
for  his  crops  is  of  first  importance  to  the  farmer.  One  rea- 
son why  farming  has  been  overdone  in  the  West  is  because 
the  depression  in  our  manufacturing  industries  from  1873 
to  1879  and  in  other  ygars  of  hard  times  has  led  thousands 
to  try  farming  who  would  have  preferred  to  receive  good 
wages  as  mechanics.  What  comfort  is  it  to  the  farmer  if 
he  has  good  crops  and  the  wages  of  mechanics  everywhere 
are  so  low  that  they  can  not  pay  good  prices  for  farm  prod- 
ucts? And  what  comfort  is  it  to  the  unemployed  mechanic 
that  the  necessaries  of  life  are  cheap  if  his  wages  have  en- 
tirely ceased?  He  would  prefer  that  they  should  be  higher 
in  price  if  his  wages  could  only  be  restored.  Both  the  farm- 
er and  the  mechanic  must  in  the  end  see  that  selfishness 
which  thinks  only  of  the  welfare  of  individuals  and  classes 
will  not  pay. 


CHAPTER   XVIII. 

CAPITAL,   THE    FKIEND    OF    LABOR. 

HENRY  C.  CAREY  was  fond  of  quoting  the  following  ex- 
tract from  a  report  made  by  a  British  Parliamentary  Com- 
mission in  1854,  and  which  we  have  already  quoted  in  a 
preceding  chapter :  "  The  laboring  classes  generally  in  the 
manufacturing  districts  of  this  country,  and  especially  in  the 
iron  and  coal  districts,  are  very  little  aware  of  the  extent  to 
which  they  are  often  indebted  for  their  being  employed  at 
all  to  the  immense  losses  which  their  employers  voluntarily 
incur  in  bad  times  in  order  to  destroy  foreign  competition  and 
to  gain  and  keep  possession  of  foreign  markets.  .  .  .  The 
large  capitals  of  this  country  are  the  great  instruments  of 
warfare  against  the  competing  capital  of  foreign  countries." 
And  Mr.  Carey  was  never  at  a  loss  for  vigorous  words  of 
condemnation  of  this  piratical  British  policy,  which  has  nev- 
er been  abandoned. 

The  policy  of  British  manufacturers,  frankly  avowed  in 
the  above  words,  rendered  necessary  in  this  country  a  defen- 
sive policy  for  our  struggling  manufacturing  industries,  and 
in  this  fact  alone  we  have  ample  justification  of  our  protec- 
tive policy.  If  British  manufacturers  were  to  undertake  to 
systematically  stamp  out  the  industries  of  this  country  our 
people  could  do  no  less  than  resent  and  resist  their  selfish 
schemes. 

But  our  present  purpose  is  not  to  call  attention  to  the  ne- 
cessity of  a  protective  policy  for  this  country  as  a  measure 


CAPITAL  THE  FRIEND   OF  LABOR.  133 

of  defense  against  foreign  aggression,  but  to  paraphrase  the 
extract  above  given  for  the  consideration  of  American  work- 
ingmen.  Let  us  imagine  an  American  Congressional  Com- 
mission making  the  following  report :  "  The  laboring  classes 
generally  in  the  manufacturing  districts  of  the  United  States 
are  very  little  aware  of  the  extent  to  which  they  are  often 
indebted  for  their  being  employed  at  all  to  the  immense 
losses  which  their  employers  incur  in  bad  times.  The  large 
capitals  of  this  country  are  the  great  instruments  in  the  de- 
fense of  American  labor  against  the  competing  capital  of 
foreign  countries  in  our  markets  and  against  all  other  un- 
friendly or  unfavorable  influences." 

Is  not  all  this  literally  true  ?  How  could  many  of  our 
manufacturing  industries  have  survived  the  panic  of  1873 
to  1879  if  they  had  not  rested  upon  a  solid  financial  founda- 
tion which  enabled  them  to  sustain  the  shock  of  heavy  loss- 
es which  we  all  know  they  then  experienced  ?  How  could 
many  of  these  industries  have  lived  through  the  depression 
of  1883  to  1885  and  the  panic  of  1893  and  the  subsequent 
years  of  depression  if  they  had  not  been  fortified  by  the  pos- 
session of  large  financial  resources  in  the  hands  of  resolute 
and  courageous  men  ?  Where  would  poor  men  look  for  em- 
ployment during  a  forbidding  winter  if  it  were  not  for  the 
rich  men  who  are  often  worried  from  day  to  day  to  obtain 
the  money  that  is  needed  to  pay  wages  to  these  same  poor 
men?  How  helpless,  indeed,  are  all  poor  men  in  our  day 
who  have  no  rich  men  to  lean  upon ! 

Instead  of  the  workingmen  of  this  country,  or  any  part  of 
them,  joining  with  free  trade  orators  and  editors  in  the  de- 
nunciation of  capital  as  their  enemy  when  it  goes  into  the 
hands  of  a  few  rich  men  who  are  their  own  countrymen 


134  NOTES  AND   COMMENTS. 

they  should  be  thankful  that  these  rich  men  are  indeed 
their  countrymen,  who  use  their  capital,  no  matter  how  ob- 
tained, in  employing  American  labor,  and  that  they  are  not 
foreign  money  kings,  employing  their  capital  in  breaking 
down  American  industries.  The  more  capital  this  country 
has  the  more  labor  will  be  employed,  and  the  better  the 
fight  we  can  make  for  the  upbuilding  of  American  indus- 
tries when,  as  has  often  happened,  duties  on  foreign  products 
are  too  low  to  be  adequately  protective,  or  when  a  financial 
panic  or  a  prolonged  period  of  business  depression  threatens 
the  most  serious  consequences.  Capital  in  large  masses,  un- 
just as  it  often  is,  is,  after  all,  the  mainstay  of  our  industrial 
prosperity.  If  we  had  no  more  rich  men  in  this  country  to- 
day than  we  had  a  quarter  of  a  century  ago  we  would  be 
far  behind  in  the  race  for  industrial  supremacy  and  the 
workingmen  of  this  country  would  be  poor  indeed. 

Nor  should  those  who  are  now  poor  forget  that  most  of 
our  rich  men  were  once  themselves  poor  men,  a  fact  which 
should  encourage  them  to  believe  that  they  also  may  some 
day  be  capitalists.  The  way  is  open  in  this  country  to 
most  industrious  men  to  become  capitalists  in  a  small  way 
by  saving  their  earnings  and  prudently  investing  them.  Op- 
portunities to  own  a  home  are  presented  in  this  country 
which  do  not  exist  in  any  other  country,  and  we  know  of  no 
better  way  to  become  a  capitalist  than  by  buying  a  home 
and  refusing  to  pay  rent  to  a  landlord.  Then  there  are  sav- 
ings banks  in  which  small  savings  may  grow  to  large  sums, 
and  railroad  and  other  securities  in  which  money  saved 
from  going  the  way  of  the  saloon-keeper  and  the  race-course 
will  yield  sure  dividends  which  also  will  help  to  make  capi- 
talists of  thrifty  workingmen. 


CAPITAL  THE  FRIEND   OF  LABOR.  135 

But  there  are  times  and  conditions,  to  which  we  have  al- 
luded, when  it  may  be  frankly  admitted  that  money  can  not 
be  laid  away  in  any  form — when  employment  is  not  always 
to  be  obtained  and  when  wages  are  low.  At  such  times  the 
workingman  must  devote  his  energies  to  the  task  of  simply 
supporting  himself  and  his  family  until  better  times  come. 
To  do  this  and  to  keep  out  of  debt  may  be  a  work  of  much 
difficulty,  but  it  can  be  done  in  all  cases  except  where  there 
are  special  hardships  to  be  borne. 

There  is,  however,  one  supreme  remedy  for  the  hard  times 
which  this  country  occasionally  experiences  and  which  no 
legislation  can  wholly  prevent.  That  remedy  is  economy  in 
personal  and  household  expenditures.  The  working  people  of 
this  country  must  sooner  or  later  learn  to  practice  this  vir- 
tue, and  the  sooner  it  enters  into  the  daily  life  of  every  man 
and  woman  who  is  not  in  affluent  circumstances  the  better. 
The  American  people  can  not  form  an  exception  to  the  gen- 
eral rule,  the  general  law,  which  has  come  down  to  us  from 
the  ages,  that  those  who  would  have  must  save  and  those 
who  would  save  must  practice  self-denial.  What  profit  is 
there  to  the  laboring  man  who  receives  good  wages  if  he 
spends  part  of  them  in  the  saloons  or  allows  others  to  spend 
them  foolishly  ?  High  wages  are  desirable,  of  course,  but 
high  wages  and  a  lack  of  economy  and  good  management 
will  produce  less  desirable  and  satisfactory  results  than  low 
wages  that  are  carefully  expended. 

One  of  the  saddest  thoughts  which  come  to  the  earnest 
advocates  of  the  protective  policy  in  this  country  is  the  re- 
flection that  the  high  wages  which  protection  usually  assures 
to  our  people  are  too  frequently  squandered  at  the  beer 
saloon  or  wasted  in  bad  housekeeping  and  in  servile  imita- 


136  NOTES  AND   COMMENTS. 

tion  of  the  habits  of  the  rich.  The  sinful  waste  of  Amer- 
ican kitchens  is  of  itself  a  deplorable  spectacle.  In  any 
hundred  homes  that  may  be  taken  for  illustration,  outside  of 
the  slums  of  our  large  cities,  it  may  be  safely  assumed  that, 
between  injudicious  buying,  bad  cooking,  and  bad  serving, 
enough  food  is  habitually  wasted  to  supply  the  tables  of  an- 
other hundred  households.  We  are  certainly  the  most  waste- 
ful people  in  the  world  in  the  matter  of  buying  and  cooking 
our  daily  food.  We  might  learn  from  the  French  if  we  would 
the  nourishment  that  is  in  a  bowl  of  good  soup  prepared  from 
inexpensive  materials,  and  from  the  same  people  the  staying 
qualities  of  a  loaf  of  bread  that  is  well  made.  We  might 
also  learn  from  the  same  provident  people  how  to  make  a 
little  bit  of  fuel  go  a  long  way.  And  common  sense  should 
teach  the  poor  man  who  can  not  own  a  home  of  his  own 
that  he  ought  not  to  live  in  a  house  the  rent  of  which  is 
beyond  his  means. 

All  this  is  a  story  as  old  as  the  oldest  of  us.  But  the 
need  of  economy  among  all  who  work  for  daily  wages  ap- 
pears to  be  especially  necessary  at  this  time  of  extravagant 
and  wasteful  habits  of  living.  Instead  of  complaining  of  the 
exactions  of  capital  American  workingmen  should  seriously 
inquire  whether  they  have  themselves  made  the  best  use  of 
their  opportunities  and  of  the  wages  that  have  been  paid  to 
them. 


CHAPTER   XIX. 

OUR   COLONIAL   IRON   INDUSTRY. 

BEGINNING  with  an  abortive  attempt  at  ironmaking  on 
Falling  creek,  Virginia,  in  1622,  and  with  a  successful  at- 
tempt at  Lynn,  Massachusetts,  in  1645,  the  manufacture  of 
iron  was  fully  established  before  the  Revolution  in  all  the 
original  thirteen  colonies  except  Georgia.  Historic  names 
are  associated  with  our  colonial  iron  industry.  Mordecai 
Lincoln,  of  Scituate,  Massachusetts,  from  whom  Abraham 
Lincoln  was  directly  descended,  was  the  principal  owner  as 
early  as  1703,  in  company  with  his  brother,  Daniel  Lincoln, 
of  the  Bound  Brook  Iron  Works,  not  far  from  Hingham. 
Augustine  Washington,  the  father  of  George  Washington, 
was  engaged  in  the  manufacture  of  pig  iron  at  Accokeek 
Furnace,  in  Stafford  county,  Virginia,  at  the  time  George 
Washington  was  born,  in  1732,  and  he  retained  his  connec- 
tion with  this  furnace  and  with  other  iron  enterprises  of  the 
Principio  Company,  of  Maryland,  until  his  death  in  1743. 
His  iron  interests  were  continued  in  the  Washington  family 
down  to  the  Revolution.  Several  signers  of  the  Declaration 
were  colonial  iron  manufacturers,  as  were  also  two  of  the 
most  notable  officers  of  the  Continental  army,  General  Na- 
thanael  Greene  and  Colonel  Ethan  Allen.  In  1742  Benja- 
min Franklin  invented  the  Franklin  stove,  which  is  still  in 
use  in  some  old  Pennsylvania  houses. 

In  his  Statistical  Vieiv  of  the  Commerce  of  the  United  States, 
published  in  1816,  Timothy  Pitkin  says  that  near  the  begin- 


138  NOTES  AND    COMMENTS. 

ning  of  the  eighteenth  century  "  the  colonists  began  also  to 
introduce  stfudry  manufactures,  for  their  own  consumption, 
such  as  woolen  and  linen  cloths,  iron,  hats,  paper,  etc.  This 
excited  the  jealousy  of  the  British  manufacturer,"  and  com- 
plaints were  made  to  various  departments  of  the  parent  gov- 
ernment that  the  new  enterprises  were  injurious  to  British 
interests  and  asking  that  they  be  suppressed.  In  1731  Par- 
liament so  far  listened  to  these  complaints  as  to  direct  the 
Board  of  Trade  and  Plantations  to  make  a  report  "  with 
respect  to  laws  made,  manufactures  set  up,  or  trade  carried 
on  in  the  colonies,  detrimental  to  the  trade,  navigation,  or 
manufactures  of  Great  Britain."  The  report  was  promptly 
made  in  the  following  year,  the  leading  facts  contained  in 
it  being  derived  from  replies  to  interrogatories  sent  by  the 
board  to  the  governors  of  the  different  colonies.  These  re- 
plies admitted  that  unimportant  manufactures  had  been  "  set 
up,"  including  the  manufacture  of  iron. 

The  Governor  of  Massachusetts  Bay  stated  that  "  there 
had  been  for  many  years  some  iron  works  in  that  province, 
which  had  afforded  the  people  iron  for  some  of  their  neces- 
sary occasigns,  but  that  the  iron  imported  from  Great  Brit- 
ain was  esteemed  much  the  best  and  wholly  used  by  the 
shipping,  and  that  the  iron  works  of  the  province  were  not 
able  to  supply  the  twentieth  part  of  what  was  necessary  for 
the  use  of  the  country."  The  report  further  mentioned  that, 
"by  late  accounts  from  Massachusetts  Bay,"  it  appeared 
that  there  were  in  that  province  "  several  forges  for  making 
bar  iron,  and  some  furnaces  for  cast  iron  or  hollow  ware, 
and  one  slitting  mill,  and  a  manufacture  for  nails." 

The  report  contains  some  information  contributed  by  "the 
surveyor  general  of  His  Majesty's  woods,"  who  writes  that 


OUR   COLONIAL  IRON  INDUSTRY.  139 

"  they  have  in  New  England  six  furnaces  and  nineteen  for- 
ges for  making  iron,"  and  that  the  people  of  New  England 
"  make  all  sorts  of  iron  work  for  shipping."  Bancroft  says 
that  these  furnaces  and  forges  had  been  "  set  up  "  as  early 
as  1719  and  that  they  were  "  a  terror  to  England." 

The  Governor  of  Rhode  Island  wrote  that  "  there  are  iron 
mines  there,  but  not  a  fourth  part  iron  enough  to  serve  their 
own  use,"  "but,"  says  the  report,  "he  takes  no  notice  of 
any  manufactures  there." 

The  foregoing  is  all  the  view  this  report  gives  of  the  ex- 
tent of  the  iron  industry  in  the  colonies  in  1731.  Notwith- 
standing these  official  statements  we  know  from  other  and 
authentic  sources  of  information  that  iron  was  made  in  New 
Jersey,  Pennsylvania,  Delaware,  Maryland,  Virginia,  and 
North  Carolina  before  1731,  but  it  does  not  appear  to  have 
been  made  in  New  York  until  after  that  year,  or  in  South 
Carolina  until  1773.  Nor  was  the  iron  industry  successfully 
established  in  Virginia  until  about  1715,  fully  a  hundred 
years  after  this  colony  was  founded. 

Mr.  Pitkin  remarks  of  the  period  in  colonial  history  cover- 
ed by  the  Parliamentary  inquiry  of  1731  that  "the  making 
of  pig  and  bar  iron  had  become  an  object  of  some  conse- 
quence in  the  colonies."  The  responses  to  this  inquiry  from 
which  the  above  extracts  have  been  taken  and  the  state- 
ment by  Bancroft  constitute  the  earliest  statistical  record  of 
the  extent  of  the  American  iron  industry. 

The  production  of  pig  iron  and  bar  iron  in  the  colonies 
was  encouraged  by  England  soon  after  1731  because  she  did 
not  have  a  sufficient  supply  of  these  crude  articles  of  her 
own  manufacture,  owing  to  the  scarcity  of  charcoal,  which 
was  the  only  fuel  then  used  in  making  iron.  Pig  iron  and 


140  NOTES  AND   COMMENTS. 

bar  iron  were  exported  from  the  colonies  to  England  in  the 
first  half  of  the  eighteenth  century,  and  shipments  of  these 
articles  to  the  mother  country  attained  considerable  propor- 
tions in  subsequent  years.  But  the  mother  country  always 
discouraged  the  manufacture  in  the  colonies  of  the  more  fin- 
ished forms  of  iron  and  of  all  kinds  of  steel.  England  prefer- 
red to  keep  at  home  all  manufacturing  enterprises  like  those 
mentioned,  that  she  might  sell  their  products  to  the  strug- 
gling colonists  on  the  Atlantic  coast  at  a  good  profit.  In 
1759  Israel  Acrelius,  the  Swedish  missionary  to  the  Swedish 
settlements  on  the  Delaware,  said  that  "  no  one  is  allowed 
to  make  nails."  But  the  colonists  had  made  a  start  in  the 
manufacture  of  the  prohibited  articles,  as  well  as  considera- 
ble progress  in  the  manufacture  of  pig  iron  and  bar  iron,  so 
that  when  the  Revolution  came  they  were  prepared  to  make 
all  the  iron  and  steel  munitions  of  war  and  other  articles  of 
iron  and  steel  that  were  needed. 

The  causes  of  the  virtual  neglect  of  the  iron  industry  in 
Virginia  during  the  first  hundred  years  of  its  existence  as  an 
English  colony,  from  the  early  part  of  the  seventeenth  cen- 
tury to  the  early  part  of  the  eighteenth  century,  appear  to 
have  been  the  strong  bent  of  its  people  toward  agricultural 
pursuits  and  particularly  the  cultivation  of  tobacco,  their 
consequent  disinclination  to  build  up  towns  and  cities  in 
which  only  the  mechanic  arts  can  flourish,  and  the  practical 
absence  of  iron  ore  in  the  lower  reaches  of  the  Tidewater  re- 
gion, which  was  for  many  years  the  only  part  of  the  colony 
that  was  open  to  settlement.  When  the  iron  industry  finally 
obtained  a  foothold  in  Virginia  in  the  early  part  of  the 
eighteenth  century  it  was  on  the  upper  waters  of  the  Rap- 
pahannock  river,  where  iron  ore  was  found  in  abundance. 


OUR  COLONIAL  IRON  INDUSTRY.  141 

Upon  the  other  hand,  Massachusetts,  Rhode  Island,  and 
Connecticut  successfully  established  the  iron  industry  early 
in  their  colonial  history  because  their  people  were  more  in- 
clined to  mechanical  employments  and  to  gather  together  in 
towns  than  those  of  Virginia ;  because  the  soil  and  climate 
of  New  England  were  not  so  well  adapted  to  agricultural 
pursuits  as  the  soil  and  climate  of  Virginia ;  and  because 
iron  ore  was  found  near  the  sea-coast,  where  the  first  settle- 
ments were  located.  So,  also,  the  first  iron  works  in  New 
Jersey  were  located  near  the  sea-coast,  in  Monmouth  county. 

The  ore  which  the  pioneer  iron  manufacturers  of  New 
England  and  New  Jersey  first  used  was  bog  ore,  which  was 
found  in  abundance  in  t-be  swamps  and  ponds  near  the  sea- 
coast.  It  was  exclusively  used  in  New  England  during  the 
whole  of  the  seventeenth  century  and  the  early  part  of  the 
eighteenth.  In  the  latter  century  "  rock  ores  "  were  found 
in  the  western  part  of  New  England  which  gave  better  re- 
sults than  the  bog  ores.  In  that  century  hard  ore  was  also 
found  at  a  few  places  in  New  England  near  the  sea-coast. 
Before  the  close  of  the  eighteenth  century  bog  ore  of  supe- 
rior quality  was  taken  in  considerable  quantities  to  the  east- 
ern parts  of  Massachusetts  from  Egg  Harbor,  in  New  Jersey, 
for  use  in  blast  furnaces. 

The  bog  ores  of  New  England  were  chiefly  used  in  the 
production  of  hollow-ware  and  other  castings  direct  from 
blast  furnaces,  sometimes  called  foundries,  but  bar  iron  was 
also  made  from  them.  In  New  York,  Pennsylvania,  Mary- 
land, and  Virginia  the  pioneers  in  the  manufacture  of  iron 
paid  more  attention  to  the  production  of  pig  iron  for  con- 
version into  bar  iron  in  refinery  forges  than  the  early  New 
England  manufacturers.  Indeed  they  in  part  supplied  New 


142  NOTES  AND  COMMENTS. 

England  with  bar  iron  and  also  with  pig  iron  for  its  forges. 
The  explanation  is  that  these  colonies  had  better  ores  than 
the  bog  ores  of  New  England,  and  could  make  from  them 
better  bar  iron,  whether  the  ores  were  first  smelted  in  fur- 
naces or  were  directly  converted  into  bar  iron  in  bloomaries. 
Bar  iron  was,  however,  made  in  all  the  colonies  in  blooma- 
ries as  well  as  in  refinery  forges,  although  there  never  were 
many  bloomaries  in  Pennsylvania  and  Maryland.  The,  term 
bloomary  was  synonymous  in  the  early  days  in  this  country 
with  Catalan  forge.  Few  forges  and  bloomaries  are  now  left. 

During  the  colonial  era  our  iron  industry  was  confined  to 
the  production  of  iron  for  domestic  and  simple  mechanical 
purposes,  except  the  pig  and  bar  iron  that  were  exported. 
There  were  no  railroads,  no  locomotives,  no  freight  and  pas- 
senger cars,  no  iron  or  steel  bridges,  no  iron  or  steel  ships, 
no  iron  or  steel  buildings,  no  heavy  pumping  or  hoisting  ma- 
chinery, no  steam  engines,  no  telegraph  wires,  and  no  wire 
fences.  Pots  and  kettles,  skillets,  andirons  and  sad-irons, 
clock  weights  and  stoves,  and  mill  irons  and  plow  points 
were  cast  at  the  furnaces.  Nails  were  made  by  hand,  gener- 
ally from  rods  which  were  slit  in  slitting  mills.  Thomas  Jef- 
ferson required  about  a  dozen  of  the  younger  slaves  owned 
by  him  to  make  nails,  and  it  is  recorded  that  "  they  made 
about  a  ton  of  nails  a  month  at  a  considerable  profit."  But 
little  steel  was  made,  and  most  of  the  tools  used  were  im- 
ported. All  the  fuel  used  in  the  iron  industry  was  charcoal, 
and  all  the  power  used  was  water  power.  There  were  no 
rolling  mills  for  bar  iron  ;  all  the  bar  iron  that  was  made 
was  hammered  under  tilt-hammers  and  trip-hammers. 

Considerable  progress  was  made  before  the  Revolution  in 
the  manufacture  of  axes,  hoes,  sickles,  scythes,  such  ma- 


OUR  COLONIAL  IRON  INDUSTRY.  143 

chiiiery  as  was  in  use,  and  other  finished  products,  and  while 
the  war  continued  a  fresh  impetus  was  given  to  their  man- 
ufacture in  all  the  colonies.  Camp  kettles  for  the  Continen- 
tal army  were  manufactured  from  sheet  iron  hammered  at 
the  forges.  Cannon  and  cannon  balls  were  cast  at  the  fur- 
naces. New  England  was  most  prominent  in  the  manufac- 
ture of  finished  products  throughout  the  whole  of  the  eigh- 
teenth century,  its  people  very  early  displaying  a  liking 
which  they  still  retain  for  the  reproductive  branches  of  the 
iron  industry.  How  much  the  country  at  large  was  depend- 
ent upon  them  for  iron  products  of  skilled  workmanship  is 
shown  by  an  incident  in  the  early  settlement  of  Ohio.  In 
1789  the  crank  for  the  first  saw-mill  built  in  Ohio  was  car- 
ried by  pack-horses  over  the  mountains  to  the  Youghiogheny 
river,  and  thence  shipped  by  water  to  its  destination  on  Wolf 
creek,  sixteen  miles  from  Marietta.  It  weighed  180  pounds, 
and  was  made  in  New  Haven,  Connecticut,  for  the  New  Eng- 
land Ohio  Company. 

The  exhaustion  of  its  bog  ores  and  the  increasing  scarcity 
and  dearness  of  charcoal  closed  many  of  the  blast  furnaces 
in  the  eastern  parts  of  New  England  soon  after  the  begin- 
ning of  the  present  century,  and  at  a  later  day  other  furna- 
ces in  the  western  parts  of  New  England  were  closed  because 
of  the  scarcity  of  charcoal  and  the  high  price  of  other  fuel. 
New  England  is,  therefore,  no  longer  prominent  in  the  man- 
ufacture of  pig  iron  because  its  command  of  the  raAv  mate- 
rials is  no  longer  absolute.  Producing  a  scanty  supply  of  pig 
iron,  and  having  to  depend  largely  on  outside  sources  for  its 
supply  of  mineral  fuel,  it  was  but  natural  that  the  rolling- 
mill  industry  of  New  England  should  also  decline  and  that 
its  steel  industry  should  make  but  slow  progress.  All  the 


144  NOTES  AND   COMMENTS. 

bloomaries  of  Western  Vermont  have  been  abandoned  be- 
cause of  the  scarcity  of  charcoal  and  the  wastefulness  of  the 
bloomary  method  of  making  iron. 

New  York  and  New  Jersey  have  not  maintained  their 
colonial  prestige  as  iron  and  steel  manufacturers ;  relatively 
it  may  be  said  that  they  have  retrograded.  The  scarcity  of 
charcoal  and  the  absence  of  mineral  fuel  within  their  borders 
have  impeded  their  progress.  Both  States  ship  iron  ore  to 
their  neighbors.  Pennsylvania  has  been  the  first  in  the  list 
of  all  our  iron  and  steel  manufacturing  States  since  colonial 
days,  attaining  this  distinction  about  1750. 

Maryland  and  Virginia  were  very  active  in  the  manufac- 
ture of  iron  in  colonial  times.  Both  of  these  colonies  and 
North  Carolina,  as  well  as  Pennsylvania  and  some  other 
colonies,  shipped  iron  to  England  before  the  Revolution. 
Long  before  that  event  hoes  made  in  Virginia  and  North 
Carolina  were  sold  in  New  York.  With  many  furnaces  and 
bloomaries  North  Carolina  long  continued  to  supply  most  of 
its  own  iron  wants,  both  before  and  after  the  Revolution, 
and  South  Carolina  had  a  flourishing  iron  industry  on  its 
northern  border  immediately  after  the  Revolution. 

There  are  now  only  two  furnaces  in  North  Carolina,  one 
of  which,  a  new  furnace,  has  never  been  in  blast.  Of  its  nu- 
merous bloomaries  only  one  is  left.  South  Carolina  presents 
a  yet  more  remarkable  instance  of  decadence  in  the  manu- 
facture of  iron.  Iron  was  made  in  this  State  for  many  years, 
commencing  before  the  Revolution.  As  late  as  1856  there 
were  eight  furnaces,  three  rolling  mills,  and  two  refinery 
forges  in  South  Carolina.  After  the  civil  war  the  fires  in 
all  its  iron  works  died  out,  and  since  then  iron  has  not  been 
made  in  any  form  within  the  limits  of  the  State. 


CHAPTEK   XX. 

REMARKABLE    DEVELOPMENT   OF   OUR  IRON  AND    STEEL 
INDUSTRIES  SINCE   1860. 

AFTER  the  Revolution  our  iron  and  steel  industries  were 
slowly  and  spasmodically  developed  for  many  years,  owing 
chiefly  to  the  severity  of  foreign  competition,  which  was  only 
occasionally  checked  by  friendly  tariff  legislation.  For  more 
than  half  the  period  from  the  inauguration  of  our  present 
form  of  government  in  J.  789  down  to  the  beginning  of  our 
civil  war  in  1861  the  duties  on  iron  and  steel  were  not  suf- 
ficient to  afford  adequate  protection  to  our  iron  and  steel  in- 
dustries. With  the  enactment  of  the  Morrill  protective  tariff 
on  March  2,  1861,  and  with  the  added  stimulus  of  the  civil 
war,  our  iron  and  steel  industries  at  once  entered  upon  a 
period  of  extraordinary  development,  which,  with  some  inter- 
ruptions, has  continued  to  the  present  time,  greatly  surpass- 
ing the  development  of  like  industries  in  any  other  country. 

Our  blast  furnace  practice  has  been  completely  revolution- 
ized since  1860  by  the  introduction  of  more  powerful  blow- 
ing engines  and  improved  hot-blast  stoves,  by  the  increased 
height  and  width  of  the  furnaces,  and  by  the  general  use  of 
bituminous  coke  and  of  richer  and  purer  iron  ores,  the  lat- 
ter coming  chiefly  from  the  Lake  Superior  region.  About 
1852  David  Thomas,  of  Catasauqua,  Pennsylvania,  introduc- 
ed powerful  blowing  engines  at  the  furnaces  of  the  Lehigh 
Crane  Iron  Company  at  Catasauqua,  which  increased  the 
pressure  of  the  blast  to  double  that  which  was  then  custom- 


146  NOTES  AND   COMMENTS. 

ary  in  England.  The  results  were  so  surprising  that  other 
furnacemen  followed  his  example,  but  it  was  not  generally 
copied  until  after  1860.  The  Player  hot-blast  stove  was  in- 
troduced into  the  United  States  in  1867  or  1868,  the  Whit- 
Avell  hot-blast  stove  in  1875,  and  the  Siemens-Cowper-Coch- 
rane  stove  in  1877.  In  1865  not  more  than  100,000  tons  of 
coke  were  consumed  in  the  production  of  pig  iron  in  this 
country,  but  now  nearly  all  our  pig  iron  is  produced  with  this 
fuel,  the  consumption  of  coke  in  our  blast  furnaces  amount- 
ing in  1895  to  more  than  9,000,000  tons.  In  1860  only 
114,401  tons  of  iron  ore  were  shipped  from  the  Lake  Supe- 
rior mines,  but  in  1895  there  were  shipped  10,438,268  tons. 
As  a  result  of  all  these  changes  we  have  recently  made  in 
one  year  more  than  ten  times  as  much  pig  iron  as  we  made 
in  any  year  immediately  prior  to  1861,  and  with  a  smaller 
number  of  furnaces  in  active  operation.  In  1860  we  made 
821,223  tons  of  pig  iron,  and  in  1890  we  made  9,202,703 
tons.  In  1895  we  made  9,446,308  tons.  Our  blast  furnace 
practice  is  conceded  to  be  the  best  in  the  world. 

The  total  production  of  steel  in  the  United  States  in  the 
census  year  1860  was  reported  to  have  been  11,838  tons, 
part  of  which  was  blister  steel  and  the  remainder  crucible 
steel,  both  of  which  were  products  of  very  old  manufactur- 
ing processes.  We  had  just  commenced  the  manufacture  of 
crucible  steel.  .In  1864  the  manufacture  of  Bessemer  steel 
in  this  country  was  successfully  undertaken,  and  in  1868  we 
made  our  first  open  hearth  steel.  In  1895  our  production  of 
all  kinds  of  steel,  chiefly  Bessemer  and  open  hearth  steel,  was 
6,114,834  tons.  Like  our  blast  furnace  practice,  our  Bessemer 
steel  practice  is  the  best  in  the  world,  and  our  open  hearth 
and  crucible  steel  practice  is  not  behind  that  of  our  rivals. 


A  GREAT  AMERICAN  INDUSTRY.  147 

In  the  rolling  and  forging  and  founding  of  iron  and  steel, 
in  the  manufacture  of  heavy  as  well  as  light  machinery  of 
iron  and  steel,  and  in  the  adoption  of  labor-saving  applian- 
ces in  the  mining  and  shipment  of  iron  ore  and  for  the  hand- 
ling as  well  as  the  production  of  iron  and  steel  this  country 
has  always  kept  pace  with  the  world's  progress,  and  in  many 
particulars  it  has  shown  the  superiority  of  its  methods  over 
those  of  all  other  countries. 

It  was  not  until  1867  that  we  began  to  substitute  Besse- 
mer steel  rails  of  domestic  manufacture  for  iron  rails,  al- 
though small  lots  of  Bessemer  steel  rails  were  imported  in 
1864,  1865,  and  1866.  In  1872  we  made  808,866  tons  of 
iron  rails,  which  was  the  largest  yearly  product  ever  attain- 
ed, and  only  83,991  tons  of  Bessemer  steel  rails.  We  con- 
tinued to  make  more  iron  rails  than  steel  rails  until  1877, 
but  in  that  year  iron  rails  fell  behind  steel  rails,  and  ten 
years  later,  in  1887,  we  made  2,119,049  tons  of  steel  rails, 
virtually  all  of  which  were  Bessemer  rails,  and  only  20,591 
tons  of  iron  rails.  In  1895  we  made  5,810  tons  of  iron  rails. 
Our  iron  rail  industry,  which  attained  its  maximum  growth 
in  1872,  is  now  practically  extinct.  So  completely  have  steel 
rails  taken  the  place  of  iron  rails  in  this  country  that  in 
1895,  according  to  Poor's  Manual,  87.8  per  cent,  of  the  total 
railroad  track  of  the  United  States  had  been  laid  with  steel 
rails.  This  change  has  taken  place  chiefly  within  the  last 
fifteen  years.  In  1880,  according  to  the  same  authority,  iron 
rails  still  formed  70.9  per  cent,  of  our  total  railroad  track. 

As  late  as  1890  the  making  of  heavy  armor  plates  was 
an  untried  industry  in  this  country,  but  to-day  our  heavy 
armor  plates  are  the  best  in  the  world.  Our  first  armor 
plates  were  made  by  the  Bethlehem  Iron  Company  in  1890, 


148  NOTES  AND   COMMENTS. 

and  soon  afterwards  armor  plates  were  also  made  by  the 
Carnegie  Steel  Company.  The  Russian  Government  has  pur- 
chased American-made  armor  plates  in  preference  to  those 
made  in  European  establishments.  The  rapid  strides  which 
this  country  has  made  in  the  building  of  steel  merchant  ves- 
sels for  ocean  and  lake  service  and  in  the  building  and  arma- 
ment of  a  new  navy  reflect  the  highest  credit  upon  our  steel 
manufacturers  as  well  as  upon  our  shipbuilders.  The  great 
progress  that  has  been  made  in  late  years  in  this  country  in 
the  construction  of  steel  bridges  and  in  the  substitution  of 
iron  and  steel  for  wood  in  the  erection  of  public  and  private 
buildings,  particularly  the  very  high  buildings  that  are  now 
to  be  seen  in  all  our  large  cities,  could  not  have  taken  place 
if  our  iron  and  steel  manufacturers  had  not  first  demonstrat- 
ed their  ability  to  produce  the  structural  forms  required  and 
at  low  prices.  It  is  within  the  bounds  of  probability  that 
the  production  of  structural  steel  in  this  country,  embracing 
beams,  beam  girders,  zee  bars,  tees,  channels,  angles,  and  plate 
girders,  will  soon  amount  to  a  million  tons  annually.  Ex- 
cluding plate  girders  our  production  of  structural  steel  in 
1895  amounted  to  517,920  tons. 

In  Alexander  Hamilton's  celebrated  report  in  1791,  when 
he  was  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  the  claim  was  made  that 
"the  United  States  already  in  a  great  measure  supply  them- 
selves with  nails  and  spikes."  The  nails  and  spikes  referred 
to  were  all  made  by  hand  labor,  many  of  them  in  chimney 
corners.  Nail-cutting  machines  had  not  yet  been  perfected. 
It  was  not  until  near  the  end  of  the  first  quarter  of  the 
present  century  that  we  made  any  considerable  quantity  of 
nails  with  the  cut-nail  machines  with  which  the  present  gen- 
eration is  familiar.  Until  1883  all  our  cut  nails  were  made 


A  GREAT  AMERICAN  INDUSTRY.  149 

of  iron,  but  in  that  year  we  began  to  make  them  of  Besse- 
mer steel,  and  in  the  same  year  steel  wire  nails  began  to 
come  into  use  as  a  substitute  for  cut  nails.  In  1895  nearly 
all  our  cut  nails  were  made  of  steel,  but  the  quantity  of  cut 
nails  produced  had  fallen  far  below  that  of  wire  nails,  the 
production  for  that  year  being  as  follows :  cut  nails,  2,129,- 
894  kegs  of  100  pounds ;  wire  nails,  5,841,403  kegs. 

It  may  be  doubted  whether  many  persons  realize  the  mag- 
nitude of  the  steel  wire  industry  of  this  country.  The  5,- 
841,403  kegs  of  wire  nails  manufactured  in  1895  were  the 
equivalent  of  260,777  tons.  About  as  many  tons  of  steel 
wire  for  fencing  were  also  produced  in  1895.  The  manufac- 
ture of  wire  rope  is  another  leading  branch  of  our  steel  wire 
industry,  and  so  also  has  been  the  manufacture  of  telegraph 
and  telephone  wire,  which  is  now  made  chiefly  of  copper. 
Electric  railways  also  require  large  quantities  of  steel  wire 
as  well  as  copper  wire.  We  did  not  make  the  steel  for  wire 
until  after  1860.  The  wire  cables  for  the  Brooklyn  bridge, 
which  was  completed  in  1883,  were  made  of  American  steel. 

Closely  related  to  our  steel  wire  industry  is  our  wire  rod 
industry.  It  had  an  existence  many  years  ago  for  the  pro- 
duction of  iron  wire  rods,  but  with  the  increased  use  of  steel 
for  various  purposes  for  which  wire  rods  are  the  raw  mate- 
rial the  demand  for  iron  wire  rods  declined  and  the  demand 
for  steel  wire  rods  increased.  As  late  as  1875  we  made 
very  few  steel  wire  rods.  In  1883,  when  it  was  proposed  to 
increase  the  production  of  steel  wire  rods  by  increasing  the 
duty  on  foreign  rods,  the  objection  was  made  that  we  could 
not  in  a  reasonable  time  supply  our  own  wants  for  wire  rods 
even  if  the  duty  were  made  more  protective.  The  duty  was 
increased  in  that  year.  In  1888  we  made  279,769  tons  of 


150  NOTES  AND   COMMENTS. 

iron  and  steel  wire  rods,  and  in  1895  we  made  791,130  tons, 
virtually  all  of  which  in  both  years  were  made  of  steel. 

Our  tinplate  industry,  the  youngest  of  the  industries  be- 
longing to  the  American  iron  trade,  is  wholly  the  creation 
of  the  last  few  years.  Its  marvelous  growth  is  shown  in  the 
following  summary  from  official  statistics  of  our  production 
of  tinplates  and  terne  plates  during  the  five  fiscal  years  be- 
ginning with  July  1, 1891,  and  ending  with  June  30, 1896  : 
Fiscal  year  1892,  6,092  tons ;  fiscal  year  1893,  44,562  tons ; 
fiscal  year  1894,  62,153  tons ;  fiscal  year  1895,  86,519  tons ; 
fiscal  year  1896,  137,156  tons.  This  progress  was  made  dur- 
ing a  period  which  embraced  several  years  of  severe  finan- 
cial depression,  accompanied  by  a  sharp  reduction  in  1894 
in  the  tinplate  duty.  While  we  have  been  so  rapidly  devel- 
oping our  tinplate  industry  we  have  developed  with  equal 
rapidity  the  manufacture  of  black  plates,  or  sheets,  to  be  tin- 
coated  or  terne-coated. 

It  is  only  just  to  say  that  the  marvelous  progress  of  our 
iron  and  steel  industries  since  1860  could  not  have  been 
possible  if  we  had  not  in  the  meantime  opened  one  after 
another  the  rich  iron  ore  mines  of  the  Lake  Superior  region 
and  gradually  year  after  year  substituted  Connellsville  coke 
for  other  fuel  in  the  blast  furnace.  Other  ores,  notably  the 
cheap  ores  of  some  of  the  Southern  States,  and  other  coke, 
notably  that  of  Alabama  and  the  Pocahontas  Flat  Top  re- 
gion, have  in  recent  years  contributed  largely  to  our  produc- 
tion of  iron  and  steel,  but  it  is  nevertheless  true  that  without 
Lake  Superior  ores  and  Connellsville  coke  we  would  still  be 
in  vassalage  to  Europe  for  many  iron  and  steel  products. 

Natural  gas  has  played  an  important  part  in  the  manu- 
facture of  finished  forms  of  iron  and  steel  since  1874,  when 


A  GREAT  AMERICAN  INDUSTRY.  151 

it  was  first  used  in  this  country  in  puddling  and  heating 
furnaces  and  in  the  generation  of  steam.  In  1886  every  roll- 
ing mill  and  steel  works  in  Allegheny  county,  Pennsylvania, 
55  in  all,  used  natural  gas  as  fuel,  and  in  the  same  year 
natural  gas  was  used  in  13  other  mills  and  steel  works — in 
nearly  all  exclusively.  In  1887  there  were  96  mills  and 
steel  works  which  used  natural  gas  as  fuel  either  wholly  or 
in  part,  and  in  1889  there  were  104,  but  at  the  beginning  of 
1896,  owing  to  the  exhaustion  of  many  sources  of  supply, 
there  were  only  89.  The  number  must  soon  decline.  The 
aggregate  consumption  of  natural  gas  in  the  iron  and  steel 
works  of  the  country  is  growing  less  and  less  from  year  to 
year.  It  is  worthy  of  liote,  however,  that  the  development  of 
our  iron  and  steel  industries  has  been  greatly  promoted  by 
the  use  of  this  ideal  fuel,  and  that  our  tinplate  industry  es- 
pecially owes  much  of  its  original  and  present  activity  to  the 
use  of  natural  gas  in  Indiana  and  some  other  States. 

The  rapid  development  of  our  iron  and  steel  industries 
since  1860  could  not,  of  course,  have  been  possible  without 
the  aid  of  skilled  metallurgists  and  engineers,  who  have  in 
turn  been  largely  indebted  to  our  scientific  and  technical 
schools,  yet  it  is  remarkable  that  it  was  not  until  after  the 
opening  of  the  period  under  consideration  that  the  chemical 
analysis  of  iron  ores,  blast  furnace  fuel,  pig  iron,  and  finish- 
ed products  received  general  attention.  In  1860  James  C. 
Booth,  a  noted  Philadelphia  chemist,  was  unable  to  induce 
the  ironmasters  of  Eastern  Pennsylvania  to  contribute  joint- 
ly the  sum  of  $1,200  to  have  the  iron  ores  used  by  them 
analyzed  by  Mr.  Booth.  In  the  spring  of  1863  William  F. 
Durfee  established  a  well  equipped  laboratory  in  connection 
with  the  experimental  Bessemer  steel  works  at  Wyandotte, 


152  NOTES  AND   COMMENTS. 

Michigan,  which  is  believed  to  have  been  the  first  chemical 
laboratory  connected  with  any  steel  works  in  this  country, 
if  not  in  the  world.  As  late  as  1866,  when  J.  Blodget 
Britton  established  his  "  ironmasters'  laboratory "  in  Phila- 
delphia, few  furnacemen  ever  thought  of  having  their  raw 
materials  or  pig  iron  analyzed.  Now  practically  all  iron 
ores  and  pig  iron  in  this  country  are  sold  by  analysis,  or 
upon  reputation  established  by  analysis,  and  chemical  as  well 
as  physical  tests  are  required  in  all  sales  of  finished  iron 
and  steel  which  are  subjected  to  extraordinary  strain  or  pres- 
sure. It  is  also  remarkable  that  pyrometers  were  not  used 
in  this  country  to  measure  the  temperature  of  blast  furna- 
ces until  1862,  when  Edward  Brown,  of  Philadelphia,  intro- 
duced an  English  pyrometer,  which  was  succeeded  in  1869 
by  improved  pyrometers  of  his  own  invention. 

One  result  of  the  improvements  that  have  taken  place  in 
the  manufacture  of  iron  and  steel  in  this  country  since  1860 
has  been  the  partial  or  complete  abandonment  of  time-hon- 
ored methods  of  production  which  could  not  compete  with 
the  new  methods.  In  1860  only  iron  was  used  in  the  pro- 
duction of  bars,  rods,  plates,  sheets,  and  rails,  and  the  pud- 
dling furnace  was  an  indispensable  agency  in  their  manufac- 
ture. To-day  the  puddling  furnace  is  second  in  importance 
to  the  Bessemer  converter  and  to  the  open  hearth  furnace, 
both  of  which  will  encroach  upon  it  more  and  more  from 
year  to  year.  The  Danks  puddler,  from  which  so  much  was 
expected  from  1870  to  1875,  is  never  mentioned.  The  ce- 
mentation furnace  for  making  steel  and  the  slitting  mill  for 
making  nail  rods  survive  only  as  curiosities.  The  blast  furna- 
ces that  were  run  by  water  have  nearly  all  gone.  Except  for 
special  purposes  the  day  of  small  furnaces  is  over.  Forges  for 


A   GREAT  AMERICAN  INDUSTRY.  153 

making  bar  iron  from  pig  iron  disappeared  about  1860,  but 
forges  for  making  blooms,  billets,  and  bars  direct  from  the 
ore  and  blooms  from  scrap  iron  and  pig  iron  have  made  a 
more  vigorous  struggle  for  existence,  yet  nearly  all  of  these 
have  also  disappeared.  As  late  as  1850  there  were  more  pig 
iron  and  scrap  iron  forges  in  Pennsylvania  than  rolling  mills, 
and  as  late  as  1876  there  were  more  iron  ore  forges  in  New 
York  than  rolling  mills.  In  that  year  there  were  27  forges 
in  New  York  which  made  iron  directly  from  the  ore ;  there 
are  now  only  7,  and  not  all  of  these  are  actively  employed. 
For  many  years  after  1860  there  were  more  iron  ore  forges 
than  rolling  mills  in  several  Southern  States ;  there  were 
hundreds  of  these  forges?  making  small  quantities  of  wrought 
iron  directly  from  the  ore,  before  1860 ;  but  in  1896  there 
was  only  one  active  forge  of  this  character  left,  Helton  Forge, 
at  Grumpier,  in  Ashe  county,  North  Carolina.  At  the  Exe- 
ter Steam  Forge,  in  Berks  county,  Pennsylvania,  bar  iron  is 
still  hammered  from  charcoal  blooms  and  wrought  scrap  iron, 
and  this  is  the  only  forge  that  is  left  where  bar  iron  is  now 
hammered  for  the  general  market. 

So  numerous  were  forges  in  this  country  before  they  were 
supplanted  by  rolling  mills  and  modern  steel  works  that  the 
Hon.  Abram  S.  Hewitt  made  them  the  subject  of  a  very 
neat  compliment  to  American  ironmasters  in  a  speech  at  the 
dinner  of  the  Iron  and  Steel  Institute  at  New  York,  in  Octo- 
ber, 1890.  Mr.  Hewitt  said  that  "  for  more  than  a  hundred 
years,  when  there  were  few  places  of  entertainment  in  this 
country,  the  traveler,  when  he  set  out  on  a  journey,  used  to 
ask,  'How  far  is  it  to  the  next  forge?'  because  there  enter- 
tainment for  man  and  beast  was  always  to  be  found  without 
money  and  without  price." 


154  NOTES  AND  COMMENTS. 

The  low  prices  at  which  steel  rails  of  home  manufacture 
have  been  sold  to  our  railroad  companies  will  serve  as  an 
illustration  of  the  cheapening  of  all  iron  and  steel  products 
in  this  country  since  we  began  the  manufacture  of  steel  in 
large  quantities  under  the  stimulus  of  the  Morrill  tariff  and 
its  supplements.  "When  it  was  proposed  in  Congress  in  1870 
to  place  a  protective  duty  of  $28  a  ton  on  imported  steel 
rails  Mr.  Kerr  and  Mr.  Marshall,  prominent  members  of  the 
House  of  Representatives,  earnestly  protested  against  the  pro- 
posed duty  because  it  would  so  increase  the  cost  of  foreign 
steel  rails  that  our  railroad  companies  could  not  afford  to  im- 
port them.  The  average  price  of  Bessemer  steel  rails  in  this 
country  in  1870  was  $106.75  a  ton,  in  currency.  The  duty 
of  $28  a  ton  was  imposed  in  that  year  and  the  price  of  steel 
rails  fell  in  five  years  to  an  average  of  $68.75  a  ton,  and  it 
has  never  since  risen  above  these  figures  but  has  steadily 
fallen  in  most  of  the  succeeding  years.  In  the  whole  of  the 
year  1894  the  price  was  $24  a  ton,  and  in  the  early  part  of 
1895  it  was  $22  a  ton,  or  less  than  a  cent  a  pound.  In  the 
latter  part  of  1895  and  in  1896  it  was  $28  a  ton,  which  is 
exactly  the  amount  of  the  duty  that  was  imposed  in  1870, 
and  in  1897  the  price  fell  for  a  few  days  below  $17  a  ton. 

During  the  whole  of  the  important  period  under  review 
the  extension  of  our  railroad  system  has  been  the  leading 
commercial  factor  in  building  up  our  iron  and  steel  indus- 
tries. Our  railroads  have  called  for  large  quantities  of  iron 
and  steel  for  rails,  bridges,  cars,  locomotives,  and  other  pur- 
poses. At  the  close  of  1860  there  were  in  this  country  30,- 
626  miles  of  steam  railroad  which  were  completed  and  in 
operation,  and  at  the  end  of  1895  there  were  181,021  miles, 
these  being  the  figures  of  Poor's  Manual.  With  the  excep- 


A  GREAT  AMERICAN  INDUSTRY.  155 

tion  of  64.74  miles  of  elevated  railroad  in  New  York  and 
Brooklyn  the  mileage  of  elevated  and  street  railways  is  not 
included  in  the  above  figures  for  1895.  The  Street  Railway 
Journal  for  July,  1895,  gives  the  aggregate  track  mileage 
of  these  railways  in  that  year  as  13,588  miles,  including  the 
New  York  and  Brooklyn  and  other  elevated  roads. 

But,  while  full  force  should  be  given  to  the  tremendous 
demand  which  all  our  railroads  have  made  upon  our  iron 
and  steel  works,  our  bridge  works,  our  car  and  locomotive 
works,  our  car  wheel  works,  and  our  machine  shops  and 
foundries,  the  fact  is  equally  worthy  of  consideration  that  a 
large  part  of  our  railroad  mileage  could  not  have  been  built 
if  our  iron  and  steel  manufacturers  had  not  been  encourag- 
ed by  the  protective  policy  to  increase  their  facilities  for  the 
production  of  iron  and  steel,  and  if  the  competition  between 
these  manufacturers  had  not  greatly  reduced  the  prices  of 
their  products,  most  notably  of  steel  rails,  as  has  already 
been  shown. 

The  statistics  of  pig  iron  production  by  Great  Britain 
show  how  much  more  rapid  has  been  the  progress  of  our 
pig  iron  industry  since  1860  than  that  of  our  rival.  Great 
Britain  produced  almost  as  much  pig  iron  in  1860  (3,826,- 
752  tons)  as  the  United  States  produced  in  1880,  (3,835,- 
191  tons,)  and  yet,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  we  started 
so  far  behind  in  the  race,  we  made  in  1890  more  pig  iron 
than  Great  Britain  had  made  in  any  previous  year  or  has 
since  made.  Her  maximum  production  (8,659,681  tons)  was 
attained  in  1896  ;  our  production  in  1890  was  9,202,703 
tons;  in  1892  it  was  9,157,000  tons;  and  in  1895  it  was 
9,446,308  tons. 

Our  production  of  Bessemer  steel  rails  exceeded  that  of 


156  NOTES  AND   COMMENTS. 

Great  Britain  in  1879,  and  we  have  ever  since  retained  the 
leadership  in  this  branch  of  the  steel  industry.  Beginning 
with  1884  we  have  continuously  led  our  great  rival  in  the 
production  of  Bessemer  steel  ingots,  and  since  1890  we  have 
been  uniformly  in  advance  of  Great  Britain  in  the  aggregate 
production  of  all  kinds  of  steel. 

In  our  Annual  Report  for  1896  there  was  presented  a  ta- 
ble which  gave  the  production  of  pig  iron  and  steel  in  all 
countries  in  1895.  This  table  showed  that  this  country's  per- 
centage of  the  world's  production  of  these  essentials  of  mod- 
ern civilization  was  then  as  follows  :  pig  iron,  32.71  per  cent. ; 
steel,  37.17  per  cent.  In  the  same  year  our  percentage  of 
the  world's  production  of  iron  ore  was  27.03,  and  of  coal  it 
was  29.77. 

The  magnitude  of  our  iron  and  steel  industries  may  also 
be  seen  in  the  statistics  for  the  census  year  1890.  The 
whole  number  of  establishments  engaged  in  the  production 
of  pig  iron,  the  production  of  crude  steel,  the  rolling  of  iron 
and  steel,  and  the  production  of  iron  blooms  and  billets  in 
the  United  States  in  the  census  year  1890  was  719 ;  the  cap- 
ital invested  was  $414,044,844  ;  the  number  of  employes 
was  175,506 ;  the  amount  of  wages  paid  was  095,736,192 ; 
the  miscellaneous  expenses  amounted  to  $18,214,948  ;  the 
cost  of  materials  used  was  $327,272,845 ;  and  the  value  of 
all  products  was  $478,687,519.  The  statistics  given  do  not 
include  the  operation  of  our  iron  ore  mines,  which  are  an 
essential  part  of  our  iron  and  steel  industries,  and  which  in 
the  calendar  year  1889,  which  was  also  the  census  year  for 
iron  ore,  employed  $109,766,199  of  capital  and  38,227  work- 
men. Nor  do  they  include  the  capital  invested  and  the  wa- 
ges paid  in  the  production  of  coal  and  coke  for  use  at  our 


A  GREAT  AMERICAN  INDUSTRY.  157 

iron  and  steel  works,  or  the  capital  employed  and  the  wages 
paid  in  the  transportation  of  raw  and  finished  materials. 

The  iron  and  steel  industries  of  this  country,  as  well  as 
all  other  productive  industries,  were  greatly  depressed  during 

1893  and  1894,  owing  to  causes  which  need  not  be  here  ex- 
plained.   There  was  no  notable  advance  in  iron  and  steel  pri- 
ces until  after  the  close  of  the  first  quarter  of  1895.    Then 
followed  the  short-lived  boom  of  1895,  during  which  demand 
increased  and  prices  advanced.   The  year  closed  with  slacken- 
ed demand  and  reduced  prices,  which  conditions  were  contin- 
ued and  intensified  in  1896  and  far  into  1897. 

The  abnormally  low  prices  which  prevailed  in  1893  and 

1894  and  again  in  189d~and  1897  should  not  again  be  pos- 
sible.    During  the  former  period  the  best  furnace  coke  that 
this  country  can  produce  was  sold  on  cars  at  85  cents  per 
ton  of  2,000  pounds,  and  the  best  Lake  Superior  Bessemer 
ores  were   sold  at  less  than  $3  per  gross  ton   delivered  at 
Cleveland.     If  these  raw  materials  had  not  been  sold  at  the 
low  prices  mentioned  the  prices  of  pig  iron,  steel  billets,  steel 
rails,  and  other  iron  and  steel  products  could  not  have  fallen 
so  low  as  they  did.    During  the  years  1896  and  1897  gray 
forge  pig  iron  at  Pittsburgh  fell  to  $8.50  per  ton  and  Besse- 
mer pig  iron  in  the  same  market  to  $9.25  per  ton.     Steel 
billets  at  Pittsburgh  fell  below  $14  per  ton  in  1897. 

Now,  what  may  reasonably  be  predicted  of  the  future  of 
our  wonderful  iron  and  steel  industries?  It  has  been  shown 
how  rapid  and  substantial  has  been  their  development  since 
1860,  how  courageously  we  have  invested  our  capital  in  es- 
tablishing new  branches  of  these  industries,  how  promptly  we 
have  adopted  new  methods  of  manufacture,  and  how  quickly 
we  have  responded  to  the  demand  for  iron  and  steel  for  new 


158  NOTES  AND  COMMENTS. 

uses.  While  we  have  made  this  creditable  record  as  produc- 
ers of  iron  and  steel  we  have  steadily  improved  the  quality 
of  all  iron  and  steel  products  and  as  steadily  reduced  the 
prices  at  which  they  have  been  sold.  It  may  be  stated  with 
confidence  that  our  iron  and  steel  manufacturers  will  meet 
the  mechanical  and  commercial  problems  of  the  future  as 
courageously  and  successfully  as  they  have  met  those  of  the 
past. 

It  may  safely  be  assumed  that  the  protective  policy  of  our 
fathers  will  be  maintained  in  sufficient  force  to  preserve  the 
home  market  for  the  home  producers  of  iron  and  steel,  as 
well  as  for  the  producers  of  other  products.  The  recent  in- 
dustrial depression,  following  the  panic  of  1893,  has  again 
shown  the  folly  of  any  attempt  to  abandon  the  policy  of 
protecting  home  industry  against  foreign  competition.  Grant- 
ing, then,  that  our  iron  and  steel  manufacturers  will  contin- 
ue to  control  the  home  market,  will  that  market  continue  to 
consume  our  iron  and  steel  products  in  quantities  sufficient 
to  maintain  our  iron  and  steel  industries  in  healthy  activity, 
barring,  of  course,  periods  of  industrial  depression  which  no 
foresight  and  no  legislation  can  wholly  guard  against  ? 

We  think  that  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  recently 
developed  use  of  steel  in  the  construction  of  public  and 
private  buildings  will  continue  to  grow  from  year  to  year. 
Among  the  advantages  that  are  claimed  for  structural  steel 
is  its  cheapness.  Steel  will  also  continue  to  be  a  favorite 
material  in  bridgebuilding.  We  will  continue  to  turn  out  a 
large  annual  product  of  steel  rails,  but  chiefly  for  renewals 
and  extensions  of  railroad  track  already  laid,  and  not  chiefly 
for  the  construction  of  new  railroads,  nor  of  electric  railways 
for  passenger  traffic,  important  as  both  these  sources  of  de- 


A  GEE  AT  AMERICAN  INDUSTRY.  159 

mand  must  continue  to  be.  We  have  built  all  the  trunk  lines 
of  railroad  that  we  now  need,  and  our  cities  and  large  towns 
are  supplied  with  electric  railways.  There  will  be  an  in- 
creased demand  for  iron  and  steel  in  the  building  of  cars  and 
locomotives  and  for  the  various  appliances  of  electric  roads. 
Whether  we  greatly  increase  our  naval  strength  or  not  we 
will  continue  to  require  large  quantities  of  structural  steel 
in  the  construction  of  lake  and  ocean  vessels.  Our  new  tin- 
plate  industry  will  require  continually  increasing  quantities 
of  steel  from  year  to  year,  our  steady  increase  in  population 
of  itself  contributing  largely  to  this  result.  The  use  of  cast 
iron  pipe  and  of  wrought  iron  and  steel  pipe  must  also  in- 
crease with  our  increase  IK  population.  This  increase  in  pop- 
ulation will  also  enlarge  the  market  for  stoves,  agricultural 
implements,  cut  and  wire  nails,  wire  fencing,  and  hundreds 
of  other  articles  composed  wholly  or  in  part  of  iron  or  steel. 
Our  aggregate  consumption  of  iron  and  steel  must  certainly 
increase  as  the  years  roll  on. 


CHAPTER  XXI. 

REVELATIONS  OF  AN  OLD  LEDGER. 

IN  a  little  while  the  writers  and  orators  of  this  country 
will  be  busily  engaged  in  recounting  the  achievements  of  the 
nineteenth  century,  of  which  only  a  few  years  remain.  We 
will  be  told  of  the  great  progress  that  the  world  has  made 
during  this  wonderful  century  in  the  advancement  of  the 
arts  and  sciences,  in  the  spread  of  civil  and  religious  liberty, 
in  the  diffusion  of  general  intelligence,  in  the  multiplication 
of  social  comforts,  and  in  many  other  ways.  We  will,  for 
instance,  have  our  attention  called  to  the  fact  that  the  world 
has  produced  and  consumed  more  iron  and  steel  in  the  last 
half  of  the  nineteenth  century  than  in  all  previous  time,  and 
also  to  the  fact  that  the  methods  of  manufacturing  iron  and 
steel  in  that  half  century  were  chiefly  the  inventions  of  that 
period,  and  were  so  revolutionary  of  old-time  methods  that 
they  would  amaze  and  dumbfound  the  ironmasters  of  even 
two  generations  ago  if  they  could  come  back  and  witness 
them  in  operation. 

Without  anticipating  the  comparisons  and  the  eulogies  of 
the  writers  and  orators  referred  to  we  propose  to  note  some 
of  the  old  ways  of  doing  business  in  an  iron  town  in  Penn- 
sylvania at  the  beginning  of  the  century  that  is  so  near  its 
end.  They  furnish  a  contrast  with  present  business  methods 
that  is  just  as  great  as  that  afforded  by  the  old  and  the  new 
methods  of  manufacturing  iron  and  steel.  For  the  facts  we 
shall  present  we  are  indebted  to  an  old  ledger  which  has  re- 


REVELATIONS  OF  AN  OLD  LEDGER.  161 

cently  come  into  our  possession  and  which  escaped  the  de- 
struction of  the  Johnstown  flood  in  1889.  The  ledger  con- 
tains accounts  of  sales  made  and  of  credits  entered  by  Isaac 
Proctor,  a  merchant  of  Johnstown  in  the  early  years  of  the 
present  century,  and  a  record  of  other  business  transactions 
by  Mr.  Proctor.  His  store  was  located  on  Main  street,  imme- 
diately opposite  the  site  of  the  present  Presbyterian  church. 

Isaac  Proctor  was  a  native  of  Bedford  county,  Pennsylva- 
nia. He  settled  at  Johnstown,  "  at  the  forks  of  the  Cone- 
maugh,"  when  it  was  a  mere  hamlet  of  log  houses,  about  the 
year  1800,  in  which  year  the  town  was  laid  out  by  Joseph 
Johns,  a  Swiss  Mennonite,  into  street*  and  alleys,  building 
lots,  public  squares,  and"other  reservations.  But  the  name 
that  was  then  officially  given  to  the  new  town  was  Cone- 
maugh  and  not  Johnstown,  the  latter  name  being  substituted 
for  the  former  in  1834.  We  have  before  us  a  letter  dated  at 
Conemaugh  on  April  27, 1832.  Settlements  had  been  made 
at  Johnstown  before  1800  by  German  and  Swiss  farmers. 
For  a  number  of  years  after  1800  the  town  was  almost  ex- 
clusively inhabited  by  people  of  German  and  Swiss  origin. 

Isaac  Proctor  was  not  only  a  country  merchant  but  he  was 
also  the  owner  of  a  warehouse  on  the  north  bank  of  Stony 
creek,  below  Franklin  street,  in  Johnstown,  which  was  main- 
tained for  the  express  purpose  of  receiving  and  storing  bar 
iron  from  the  forges  of  the  Juniata  Valley,  which  bar  iron 
was  hauled  to  Johnstown  over  the  Frankstown  road  and 
thence  shipped  in  large  flatboats  to  Pittsburgh  by  way  of 
the  Conemaugh,  Kiskiminetas,  and  Allegheny  rivers.  There 
were  other  warehouses  near  that  of  Isaac  Proctor  which 
were  maintained  for  precisely  the  same  purpose.  The  flat- 
boats  were  built  at  Johnstown  or  at  points  farther  up  the 


162  NOTES  AND   COMMENTS. 

Stony  creek  and  as  far  south  as  the  mouth  of  Ben's  creek, 
three  miles  away.  A  large  business  was  done  far  into  the 
present  century  in  the  shipment  of  Juniata  iron  by  flatboats 
from  Johnstown.  At  first  and  for  many  years  these  ship- 
ments embraced  only  bar  iron,  but  subsequently  and  down 
to  the  opening  of  the  Pennsylvania  Canal  to  Johnstown  in 
1830  they  embraced  also  blooms  and  pig  iron,  all  made  with 
charcoal.  As  the  navigation  of  the  streams  mentioned  was 
as  yet  wholly  unimproved  shipments  could  only  be  made 
during  high  water,  and  even  then  experienced  pilots  were 
required  to  prevent  the  boats  from  going  to  pieces  on  the 
rocks  and  riffles  in  which  the  Conemaugh  river  particularly 
abounded.  Occasionally  a  boat  was  wrecked.  In  one  disaster 
at  Richards'  Falls  two  lives  were  lost.  Much  of  the  hauling 
over  the  Frankstown  road  was  done  in  the  winter,  and  Feb- 
ruary and  March,  when  the  spring  "  break-up "  took  place, 
were  favorite  months  for  sending  the  flatboats  to  Pittsburgh, 
which  was  one  hundred  miles  away.  The  boats  were  sold  at 
Pittsburgh  and  the  crews  walked  home. 

Keelboats  were  also  used  on  the  Conemaugh  and  Kiski- 
minetas  rivers,  but  they  were  used  chiefly  in  the  salt  trade, 
the  Conemaugh  salt  works  beginning  about  forty  miles  west 
of  Johnstown.  The  first  salt  works  on  the  Conemaugh  date 
from  about  1814.  In  A.  J.  Kite's  Hand  Boole  of  Johnstown, 
printed  in  1856,  it  is  stated  that  the  first  keelboat  built  at 
Johnstown  was  built  by  Isaac  Proctor  in  1816.  Keelboats, 
which  passed  from  the  Conemaugh  and  Kiskiminetas  into  the 
Allegheny,  brought  back  return  cargoes  from  Pittsburgh. 

The  merchandise  accounts  in  Mr.  Proctor's  ledger  are 
chiefly  for  the  years  1808  and  1809,  occasional  entries  com- 
ing down  as  late  as  1810,  1811,  and  1812.  The  warehouse 


REVELATIONS  OF  AN  OLD  LEDGER.  163 

accounts  are  for  the  years  1816, 1817,  and  1818.  As  is  usual 
in  ledger  accounts  the  prices  of  merchandise  are  not  often 
given.  It  is,  however,  very  remarkable  that  all  the  merchan- 
dise accounts  are  kept  in  pounds,  shillings,  and  pence.  The 
pound  character  (£)  is  used.  Dollars  and  cents  are  nowhere 
mentioned,  although  our  federal  coinage  was  authorized  in 
1792  and  silver  dollars  were  coined  as  early  as  1794.  The 
dollar  mark  ($)  does  not  appear  in  any  of  the  merchandise 
accounts.  That  business  should  have  been  transacted  in  Brit- 
ish or  colonial  currency  in  an  interior  town  in  Pennsylvania 
as  late  as  1812  is  a  discovery  for  which  we  were  not  pre- 
pared. We  can  not  understand  why  the  British  system  of 
computing  values  was  continued  in  that  interior  town  so 
long,  nor  is  any  light  thrown  upon  the  value  of  a  pound  in 
dollars  and  cents  at  Johnstown  in  1812,  or  upon  the  forms 
of  currency  that  were  used  when  payments  were  made  in 
"cash."  John  Holliday  closed  his  account  with  Mr.  Proctor 
in  June,  1811,  when  he  is  credited  with  a  payment  of  £32 
16s.  4d.  in  "cash;"  in  January,  1811,  Patrick  Dempsey 
closed  his  account  by  giving  his  note  for  £6  10s.  3d. ;  in 
1812  William  Fulford  closed  his  account  by  giving  his  note 
for  £2  6s.  Id.;  and  in  the  same  year  John  Grosenickle  closed 
his  account  by  giving  his  note  for  £1  Is.  2d.  In  1808  John 
Grosenickle  is  credited  with  £1  11s.  9d.  for  hauling  a  load 
of  maple  sugar  to  Bedford.  There  are  other  entries  in  the 
same  denominations. 

Another  revelation  of  this  old  ledger  is  just  as  remark- 
able as  the  use  of  pounds,  shillings,  and  pence  until  1812. 
The  warehouse  accounts  of  bar  iron  received  and  shipped  in 
1816, 1817,  and  1818  are  kept  in  tons,  hundredweights,  quar- 
ters, and  pounds,  the  ton  representing  2,240  pounds,  the  hun- 


164  NOTES  AND  COMMENTS. 

dredweight  112  pounds,  and  the  quarter  28  pounds.  The 
teamsters  who  hauled  bar  iron  over  the  Frankstown  road 
are  credited  in  tons,  hundredweights,  quarters,  and  pounds, 
and  shipments  to  Pittsburgh  are  entered  in  the  same  terms. 
In  ordinary  commercial  transactions  neither  iron  nor  any 
other  commodity  has  been  weighed  by  hundredweights  and 
quarters  forming  fractions  of  a  gross  ton  at  any  time  with- 
in our  recollection,  the  usage  being  to  weigh  only  by  tons 
and  pounds,  and  it  is  really  very  surprising  that  the  early 
English  custom  should  have  prevailed  at  Johnstown  at  so 
late  a  day  as  we  have  mentioned.  Charges  for  storage  in 
1816,  1817,  and  1818  appear,  however,  to  have  been  paid 
in  dollars  and  cents,  as  we  find  several  charges  in  1818  in 
these  denominations.  We  have  also  found  within  the  leaves 
of  the  ledger  a  bill  against  Isaac  Proctor  which  reads  as 
follows  :  "  Juniata  Forge,  16th  December,  1818.  Mr.  Isaac 
Proctor  Bot  of  Peter  Shoenberger  2  qrs.  1  Ib.  Bar  Iron,  @ 
$0.08c — $4.56."  Juniata  Forge  was  located  at  Petersburg, 
in  Huntingdon  county,  and  was  built  about  1804.  In  1814 
or  1815  it  passed  into  the  hands  of  Dr.  Peter  Shoenberger. 
The  numerous  entries  in  Mr.  Proctor's  ledger  make  clear 
the  fact  that  large  quantities  of  bar  iron  were  shipped  at 
Johnstown  by  flatboat  in  1816,  1817,  and  1818.  He  did  a 
large  warehousing  business,  and  other  owners  of  warehouses 
were  probably  active  competitors.  The  aggregate  tonnage 
shipped  by  Mr.  Proctor,  which  was  chiefly  on  account  of  Dr. 
Shoenberger,  amounted  to  several  hundred  tons  annually. 
Some  of  Mr.  Proctor's  single  shipments  amounted  to  16  and 
19  tons.  Some  of  these  shipments  were  made  "  in  my  own 
boat,"  which?  was  probably  a  keelboat.  Pittsburgh  antiqua- 
rians may  be  interested  in  learning  that  the  consignees  of  bar 


REVELATIONS  OF  AN  OLD  LEDGER.  165 

iron  at  Pittsburgh  were  Richard  Bowen  &  Co.,  Robert  Alex- 
ander, Allen  &  Grant,  Charles  McGee,  J.  Whiting,  Robinson, 
McNickel  &  Wilds,  Irwin  &  George,  and  Thomas  Jackson. 

From  other  sources  than  the  old  ledger  we  add  some 
other  facts  which  show  the  prominence  of  Johnstown  as  an 
iron  centre  early  in  the  present  century. 

John  Holliday  built  a  forge  at  Johnstown,  on  the  north 
bank  of  the  Stony  creek,  about  1809,  for  the  manufacture  of 
bar  iron  from  Juniata  blooms  and  pig  iron,  but  we  find  no 
mention  in  Mr.  Proctor's  ledger  of  any  shipments  from  this 
forge.  The  dam  of  this  forge  was  washed  away  about  1811, 
and  subsequently  the  forge  was  removed  to  the  north  bank 
of  the  Conemaugh,  in_4he  Millville  addition  to  Johnstown, 
where  it  was  operated  down  to  about  1822,  Rahm  &  Bean, 
of  Pittsburgh,  being  the  lessees  at  this  time.  In  1817  Thom- 
as Burrell,  the  proprietor  at  that  time,  offered  wood-cutters 
"  fifty  cents  per  cord  for  chopping  two  thousand  cords  of 
wood  at  Cambria  Forge,  Johnstown."  The  forge  would  ap- 
pear to  have  been  in  operation  from  1809  to  1822. 

In  1807  or  1808  Shade  Furnace  was  built  on  Shade  creek, 
in  Somerset  county,  about  fifteen  miles  southeast  of  Johns- 
town, and  in  1820  Shade  Forge  was  built  near  the  furnace. 
As  early  as  1820  bar  iron  was  shipped  to  Pittsburgh  from 
Shade  Forge.  Much  of  the  iron  from  this  forge  was  hauled 
to  Johnstown  for  shipment  down  the  Conemaugh,  but  some 
of  it  was  shipped  in  flatboats  directly  from  the  forge.  Pig 
iron  was  also  hauled  to  Johnstown  from  Shade  Furnace  for 
shipment  to  Pittsburgh.  But  there  was  another  early  forge, 
which  was  still  nearer  to  Johnstown,  on  the  Stony  creek, 
about  half  a  mile  below  the  mouth  of  Shade  creek,  known 
as  Mary  Ann  Forge,  which  shipped  bar  iron  to  Pittsburgh  at 


166  NOTES  AND  COMMENTS. 

a  still  earlier  day,  and  perhaps  as  early  as  1811.  Eichard 
Geary,  the  father  of  Governor  John  "W.  Geary,  was  the  man- 
ager of  the  forge  for  about  one  year,  and  was  supercargo  of 
a  load  of  bar  iron  which  was  shipped  from  the  forge  down 
the  Stony  creek,  the  Conemaugh,  and  other  streams  to  Pitts- 
burgh. Garret  Ream  lived  at  the  mouth  of  Ben's  creek  and 
built  boats  which  were  loaded  at  Johnstown,  but  he  also 
shipped  iron  direct  from  Ben's  creek,  and  it  is  probable  that 
some  of  this  iron  came  from  Mary  Ann  Forge,  Shade  Fur- 
nace, and  Shade  Forge. 

About  200  pounds  of  nails,  valued  at  $30,  were  made  at 
Johnstown  by  one  establishment  in  the  census  year  1810. 
About  this  time  an  enterprise  was  established  at  Johnstown 
by  Robert  Pierson,  by  whom  nails  were  cut  from  strips  of 
so-called  "  nail  iron "  with  a  machine  worked  by  a  treadle, 
but  without  heads,  which  were  added  by  hand  in  a  vise. 
The  "  nail  iron  "  was  obtained  at  the  small  rolling  mills  in 
Huntingdon  county  and  hauled  in  wagons  to  Johnstown. 

The  chief  interest  of  this  old  ledger  consists  in  its  reve- 
lation of  the  fact  that  large  quantities  of  Juniata  bar  iron 
were  shipped  to  Pittsburgh  from  Johnstown  as  early  as  1816. 
Earlier  shipments  were  made  by  water  from  Johnstown  to 
the  same  destination,  probably  as  early  as  1800,  but  the 
ledger  of  Isaac  Proctor  shows  conclusively  that  these  ship- 
ments had  attained  large  proportions  in  1816,  1817,  and 
1818,  in  which  years  bar  iron  had  not  yet  been  made  at 
Pittsburgh.  Next  in  importance  among  the  facts  disclosed 
by  Mr.  Proctor's  ledger  is  the  survival  at  Johnstown  down 
to  1812  of  the  British  system  of  computing  values,  and  the 
survival  down  to  1818  of  the  now  long  disused  hundred- 
weights and  quarters. 


CHAPTER  XXII. 

THE   EARLY   HISTORY   OF   PITTSBURGH. 

THE  prominence  which  Pittsburgh  has  attained  as  the 
centre  of  the  iron,  steel,  bituminous  coal,  and  glass  industries 
of  the  United  States,  and  as  the  centre  of  the  world's  iron 
and  steel  industries,  justifies  some  reference  in  these  pages  to 
its  early  history  and  to  the  prominent  part  which  Washing- 
ton bore  in  shaping  that  history.  The  dates  which  we  shall 
give  have  been  verified,  from  trustworthy  sources. 

The  selection  of  the  forks  of  the  Ohio  river,  formed  by  the 
junction  of  the  Monongahela  and  the  Allegheny  rivers,  as  a 
suitable  place  for  the  erection  of  a  fort,  was  made  in  1753 
by  George  Washington  for  the  mutual  benefit  of  the  Ohio 
Company  and  the  colony  of  Virginia,  which  latter  Wash- 
ington officially  and  directly  represented.  The  Ohio  Com- 
pany was  composed  chiefly  of  Virginians,  and  of  this  com- 
pany Lawrence  and  Augustine  Washington,  half  brothers  of 
George  Washington,  were  members.  The  company  was  or- 
ganized to  engage  in  trade  with  the  Indians  west  of  the  Al- 
leghenies  and  to  secure  valuable  grants  of  land.  It  received 
the  encouragement  and  support  of  the  Virginia  authorities 
because  the  territory  it  expected  to  occupy  was  claimed  as  a 
part  of  Virginia.  In  November  of  the  year  above  mention- 
ed Washington  visited  the  forks  of  the  Ohio  while  serving 
as  a  commissioner  from  Governor  Dinwiddie,  of  Virginia,  to 
the  French  commandant  in  Northwestern  Pennsylvania.  He 
says  in  his  journal  that  he  thinks  the  point  at  the  junction 


168  NOTES  -AND  COMMENTS. 

of  the  two  rivers  "  extremely  well  situated  for  a  fort."  The 
Ohio  Company  had  previously  selected  a  site  for  a  fort  on 
the  left  bank  of  the  Ohio  river,  two  miles  below  the  junc- 
tion of  the  Allegheny  and  the  Monongahela  rivers,  at  a 
place  now  known  as  McKee's  Kocks,  but  Washington  con- 
demned this  selection  for  reasons  which  are  mentioned  in 
his  journal.  His  judgment  was  superior  to  that  of  the  com- 
pany, which  approved  his  choice,  as  did  also  the  Virginia 
authorities.  In  February,  1754,  by  direction  of  the  Govern- 
or of  Virginia,  a  company  of  Virginia  militia,  commanded 
by  Captain  William  Trent,  undertook  the  erection  of  a  fort 
in  the  forks,  in  aid  of  the  plans  of  the  Ohio  Company  and 
to  establish  the  jurisdiction  of  Virginia,  but  from  this  work 
the  militia  were  driven  in  April  by  a  large  body  of  French 
and  Indians,  who  immediately  began  and  completed  the  erec- 
tion of  a  fort  at  the  same  place,  which  they  called  Fort 
Duquesne,  in  honor  of  the  Governor-General  of  Canada. 

In  the  month  of  April,  1754,  Washington  was  sent  by 
Governor  Dinwiddie  with  a  small  force  of  Virginians,  which 
was  subsequently  increased,  to  the  support  of  the  Virginia 
company  under  Captain  Trent,  but  before  reaching  Western 
Pennsylvania  he  learned  that  the  half-completed  fort  at  the 
forks  of  the  Ohio  had  fallen  into  the  hands  of  the  French. 
Washington  pushed  on  toward  the  mouth  of  Redstone  creek 
on  the  Monongahela  river,  where  he  could  establish  a  base 
of  operations  against  the  French  and  await  reinforcements. 
A  strong  force  of  French  and  Indians  was  promptly  dis- 
patched from  Fort  Duquesne  against  Washington's  small 
command,  intercepting  him  before  he  reached  his  destination. 
The  battle  of  Great  Meadows,  in  Fayette  county,  Pennsyl- 
vania, about  seventy-five  miles  southeast  of  Fort  Pitt,  was 


THE  EARLY  HISTORY  OF  PITTSBURGH.  169 

fought  by  the  contending  forces  on  July  3, 1754,  which  was 
followed  by  Washington's  capitulation,  his  first  and  only  sur- 
render, and  by  the  abandonment  of  his  expedition.  These 
events  mark  the  beginning  of  the  final  contest  between  the 
French  and  the  English  for  the  control  of  the  country  west 
of  the  Alleghenies.  (In  1767  Washington  bought  a  tract  of 
234  acres  which  included  Great  Meadows,  and  he  owned  this 
tract  at  his  death  in  1799.) 

An  ineffectual  attempt  was  made  in  1755  by  a  force  of 
British  regulars  and  provincial  troops  to  drive  the  French 
from  Fort  Duquesne,  which  resulted  in  the  defeat  of  General 
Braddock  near  the  site  of  the  present  Edgar  Thomson  Steel 
Works.  Three  years  afterwards,  in  November,  1758,  Fort 
Duquesne  fell  into  the  hands  of  the  British  and  their  pro- 
vincial allies  under  General  Forbes,  the  French  blowing  up 
the  fort  and  disappearing,  some  of  them  pushing  off  in  their 
boats  down  the  Ohio  and  up  the  Allegheny,  while  others 
marched  overland  to  Erie,  then  known  as  Presqu'  Isle. 

Washington  was  present  at  Braddock's  defeat,  as  is  well 
known,  but  he  was  also  present  when  Fort  Duquesne  fell 
into  the  hands  of  General  Forbes  in  1758,  which  is  not  so 
well  known.  In  December,  1 758,  a  new  fort  was  built  at  the 
forks  and  named  Fort  Pitt,  in  honor  of  William  Pitt,  the 
British  Secretary  of  State.  In  1759  and  1760  the  construc- 
tion of  a  more  formidable  fortification,  to  take  the  place  of 
the  first  Fort  Pitt,  was  commenced  and  practically  completed 
by  General  Stanwix,  the  new  fort  being  also  named  Fort 
Pitt.  This  fort  was  entirely  completed  by  Colonel  Bouquet 
in  1761,  who  added  in  1764  a  block-house,  or  redoubt,  which 
is  still  standing. 

In  1763  the  conspiracy  of  the  Western  Indians  under  the 


170  NOTES  AND   COMMENTS. 

leadership  of  Pontiac  was  formed  and  a  fierce  border  war 
ensued,  during  which  Fort  Pitt  was  for  many  weeks  besieg- 
ed by  a  large  body  of  Indians  and  successfully  defended  by 
the  garrison  under  command  of  Captain  Ecuyer,  a  native  of 
Switzerland.  While  the  siege  was  in  progress  Colonel  Bou- 
quet, also  a  native  of  Switzerland,  commanding  the  British 
and  provincial  forces  in  Pennsylvania,  Maryland,  and  Vir- 
ginia, and  whose  headquarters  were  then  in  Philadelphia, 
moved  from  Carlisle  to  the  relief  of  Fort  Pitt  with  about  five 
hundred  men  in  his  command.  In  August  the  Indians  tem- 
porarily abandoned  the  siege  of  Fort  Pitt  and  attacked  Col- 
onel Bouquet's  command  at  Bushy  Run,  in  Westmoreland 
county,  about  twenty-five  miles  east  of  Pittsburgh,  but  after 
an  engagement  of  two  days  were  defeated,  with  severe  loss 
on  both  sides.  This  defeat  resulted  in  raising  the  siege  of 
Fort  Pitt.  Sufficient  importance  has  never  been  attached  to 
the  battle  of  Bushy  Run.  It  was  one  of  the  most  sangui- 
nary and  eventful  engagements  between  whites  and  Indians 
that  was  ever  fought. 

In  1772  Fort  Pitt  was  abandoned  by  the  British  and  its 
garrison  was  withdrawn  by  General  Gage,  the  commander 
of  the  British  forces  in  America.  The  fort  was  subsequent- 
ly occupied  by  Continental  troops  during  the  Revolution. 
For  some  years  after  the  Revolution  Fort  Pitt  was  occu- 
pied by  United  States  troops  as  a  protection  against  the  In- 
dians, but  by  1791  the  fort  had  been  entirely  abandoned  and 
a  large  part  of  it  was  torn  down  in  the  fall  of  that  year. 
Late  in  the  same  year  orders  were  issued  to  Major  Isaac 
Craig  to  build  a  new  fortification  at  Pittsburgh,  and  this 
structure,  situated  on  the  left  bank  of  the  Allegheny  river, 
about  a  quarter  of  a  mile  above  Fort  Pitt,  and  which  was 


THE  EARLY  HISTORY  OF  PITTSBURGH.  171 

called  Fort  Fayette,  was  finished  and  occupied  by  a  garrison 
in  1792.  This  fort  was  used  in  that  year  in  the  initial  op- 
erations in  General  Anthony  Wayne's  expedition  against  the 
Indians,  and  it  continued  to  be  occupied  by  a  garrison  for 
several  years  afterwards,  forming  one  of  the  frontier  forts 
that  were  maintained  to  overawe  the  Indians.  Thomas  Ashe, 
an  English  traveler,  says  that  a  garrison  was  maintained  at 
Fort  Fayette  when  he  visited  Pittsburgh  in  October,  1806. 
The  Allegheny  Arsenal,  at  Pittsburgh,  was  completed  in  1814, 
and  Fort  Fayette  was  doubtless  abandoned  about  that  time. 

Returning  to  Fort  Pitt,  it  is  stated  in  Craig's  History  of 
Pittsburgh,  in  a  description  of  the  fort  as  it  existed  about 
1796  to  1800,  that  "tie  ramparts  of  Fort  Pitt  were  still 
standing,  and  a  portion  of  the  officers'  quarters,  a  substan- 
tial brick  building,  was  used  as  a  malt  house."  From  1803 
to  1806  the  Methodists  of  Pittsburgh  were  accustomed  to 
hold  religious  services  "  in  a  room  of  Old  Fort  Pitt,"  which 
is  supposed  to  have  formed  a  part  of  "  the  officers'  quar- 
ters" mentioned  by  Craig. 

The  city  of  Pittsburgh  occupies  in  part  the  site  of  Fort 
Duquesne,  the  French  fortification,  of  Fort  Pitt,  its  British 
successor,  and  of  Fort  Fayette.  As  early  as  1758  settlers 
began  to  gather  about  Fort  Pitt,  and  in  1760  there  were  149 
men,  women,  and  children  outside  the  fort.  In  1764  lots 
and  streets  in  the  immediate  vicinity  of  the  fort,  occupying 
four  squares,  were  laid  out.  The  frontier  settlement  at  Fort 
Pitt  was  known  by  the  name  of  Pittsburgh  as  early  as 
1758,  as  appears  from  a  letter  from  General  Forbes  and  from 
Christian  Frederick  Post's  journal.  In  1769  the  Manor  of 
Pittsburgh  was  surveyed  and  reserved  by  the  Penns,  the 
proprietaries  of  the  province.  In  1770  "Washington  visited 


172  NOTES  AND  COMMENTS. 

Pittsburgh  while  on  his  way  to  the  Kanawha  Valley,  in  the 
present  State  of  West  Virginia.  In  his  journal  Washington 
says :  "  We  lodged  in  what  is  called  the  town,  distant  about 
three  hundred  yards  from  the  fort,  at  one  Semple's,  who 
keeps  a  very  good  house  of  public  entertainment.  The  hous- 
es, which  are  built  of  logs,  and  ranged  in  streets,  are  on  the 
Monongahela,  and  I  suppose  may  be  about  twenty  in  num- 
ber and  inhabited  by  Indian  traders."  In  the  siege  of  Fort 
Pitt,  in  1763,  the  houses  which  had  then  been  built  outside 
the  fort  were  all  burned.  In  1783,  after  the  treaty  of  peace, 
the  proprietaries  decided  to  sell  the  lands  within  the  Manor 
of  Pittsburgh,  the  first  sale  being  made  in  January,  1784. 
In  that  year  the  town  of  Pittsburgh  was  surveyed  into 
streets,  alleys,  and  lots,  and  sales  of  lots  were  rapidly  made. 
Writing  in  his  journal  under  date  of  December  24,  1784, 
Arthur  Lee  says :  "  Pittsburgh  is  inhabited  almost  entirely 
by  Scots  and  Irish,  who  live  in  paltry  log  houses."  In  1786 
Pittsburgh  is  said  to  have  contained  thirty-six  log  houses, 
one  stone  house,  one  frame  house,  and  five  small  stores.  The 
town  had  grown  but  little  since  Washington's  visit  in  1770. 
Even  after  1786  it  had  a  very  slow  growth. 

Down  to  1779  Virginia  claimed  and  attempted  to  exer- 
cise jurisdiction  over  that  portion  of  Southwestern  Pennsylva- 
nia which  is  now  embraced  in  Allegheny,  Washington,  Fay- 
ette,  and  adjoining  counties,  but  in  that  year  commission- 
ers from  Virginia  and  Pennsylvania  agreed  to  the  bounda- 
ries between  the  two  States  which  have  since  been  observ- 
ed, and  in  1780  the  agreement  was  formally  ratified  by  the 
Legislature  of  each  State.  Under  the  Virginia  claim  the 
settlement  at  Fort  Pitt  was  embraced  within  the  boundaries 
of  Augusta  county,  Virginia,  Staunton  being  then  as  now  its 


THE  EARLY  HISTORY  OF  PITTSBURGH.  173 

county-seat.  Under  the  Pennsylvania  claim  and  down  to 
1788  Pittsburgh  was  included  within  the  limits  of  West- 
moreland county,  its  county-seat  being  Hannastown,  but  in 
that  year  Allegheny  county  was  organized  and  Pittsburgh 
became  the  county-seat. 

On  April  22,  1794,  an  act  of  the  Pennsylvania  Legisla- 
ture was  passed  incorporating  the  town  of  Pittsburgh  into 
a  borough.  In  1796  Pittsburgh  had  a  population  of  1,395, 
and  in  1800  the  population  was  only  1,565.  In  1810  it  had 
increased  to  4,768.  On  March  18, 1816,  the  borough  of  Pitts- 
burgh was  erected  into  a  city.  In  1830  the  population  was 
12,568,  in  1840  it  was  21,115,  and  in  1850  it  was  46,601.  In 
1845  occurred  the  great"fire  at  Pittsburgh,  which  destroyed 
over  one  thousand  dwellings,  warehouses,  stores,  and  other 
buildings,  the  loss  amounting  to  about  six  million  dollars. 

In  1787  the  town  of  Allegheny,  opposite  Pittsburgh,  was 
"laid  out  by  the  order  of  the  sovereign  authority  of  Penn- 
sylvania," with  the  intention  of  making  it  the  county-seat  of 
Allegheny  county,  but  this  intention  was  soon  abandoned. 
Allegheny  became  a  borough  in  1828  and  it  was  incorpo- 
rated into  a  city  in  1840. 

The  proprietaries  of  the  province  of  Pennsylvania  were 
fully  aware  as  early  as  1769  of  the  existence  of  coal  at 
Pittsburgh.  In  a  letter  dated  at  London,  January  31, 1769, 
Thomas  Penn  writes  to  his  nephew,  Lieutenant-Governor 
John  Penn,  as  follows :  "  We  desire  you  will  order  5,000 
acres  of  land  to  be  laid  out  about  Pittsburgh,  including  the 
town,  which  may  now  be  laid  out,  and  I  think  from  its  sit- 
uation will  become  considerable  in  time ;  and  that  the  land 
may  be  laid  out  to  Colonel  Francis  and  his  associates,  and 
other  gentlemen  of  whom  I  wrote,  as  contiguous  as  it  may 


174  NOTES  AND  COMMENTS. 

be,  and  in  regular  right-angled  tracts,  if  possible."  On  May 
12  of  the  same  year  he  writes  to  Mr.  Tilghman  respecting 
this  survey,  and  says :  "  I  would  not  engross  all  the  coal 
hills,  but  rather  leave  the  greater  part  to  others  who  may 
work  them."  The  difficulties  between  the  mother  country 
and  her  colonies  prevented  all  these  instructions  from  being 
obeyed.  The  Manor  of  Pittsburgh  was,  however,  surveyed 
in  1769,  as  already  stated. 

In  1784,  the  year  in  which  Pittsburgh  was  surveyed  into 
building  lots,  the  privilege  of  mining  coal  in  the  "  great 
seam  "  opposite  the  town  was  sold  by  the  Penns  at  the  rate 
of  £30  for  each  mining  lot,  extending  back  to  the  centre  of 
the  hill.  This  event  may  be  regarded  as  forming  the  be- 
ginning of  the  coal  trade  of  Pittsburgh.  Soon  afterwards 
the  supply  of  the  towns  on  the  Ohio  and  Mississippi  rivers 
with  Pittsburgh  coal  became  an  established  business. 

Down  to  1845  all  the  coal  shipped  westward  from  Pitts- 
burgh was  floated  down  the  Ohio  in  flat-bottomed  boats  with 
the  spring  and  fall  freshets,  each  boat  holding  about  15,000 
bushels  of  coal.  The  boats  were  usually  lashed  in  pairs,  and 
were  sold  and  broken  up  when  their  destination  was  reach- 
ed. In  1845  steam  tow-boats  were  introduced,  which  towed 
coal  barges  down  the  river  and  brought  them  back  empty. 
About  1845  Pittsburgh  coal  began  to  be  used  in  Philadel- 
phia, transportation  being  by  way  of  the  Pennsylvania  Canal. 

In  1786  The  Pittsburgh  Gazette,  the  first  newspaper  pub- 
lished west  of  the  Allegheny  mountains,  was  established  at 
Pittsburgh.  The  first  glass  works  at  Pittsburgh  were  estab- 
lished in  1797,  in  which  year  Craig.  &  O'Hara  began  the 
manufacture  of  window  glass  on  a  small  scale.  The  first 
steamboat  to  run  on  the  western  rivers  was  built  at  Pitts- 


THE  EARLY  HISTORY  OF  PITTSBURGH.  175 

burgh  in  1811  and  named  the  New  Orleans,  but  prior  to  this 
year  many  other  vessels  had  been  built  at  Pittsburgh. 

In  1792  George  Anshutz  built  a  small  iron  blast  furnace 
on  Two-mile  run,  within  the  present  limits  of  Pittsburgh, 
but  it  was  in  operation  only  two  years.  Late  in  1805  the 
first  iron  foundry  at  Pittsburgh  was  completed  by  Joseph 
McClurg  and  it  was  in  operation  in  February,  1806.  John 
and  Mathew  Stewart  had  a  cut-nail  manufactory  in  opera- 
tion in  September,  1805,  which  appears  to  have  been  the  first 
in  Pittsburgh.  "  Dorsey's  iron  "  was  for  sale  at  Pittsburgh 
in  October,  1805,  by  Thomas  Cromwell.  In  April,  1807,  E. 
Denny  advertised  "  barr  iron  for  sale,  from  Huntingdon  and 
Centre  counties,  at  a  reduced  price."  In  1811  and  1812  the 
first  iron  rolling  mill  at  Pittsburgh  was  erected  by  Christo- 
pher Cowan,  but  it  did  not  make  bar  iron.  In  1850  there 
were  16  iron  rolling  mills  in  Pittsburgh  and  its  vicinity,  with 
a  capital  of  about  83,000,000,  employing  about  2,000  hands, 
and  consuming  about  65,000  tons  of  pig  iron,  blooms,  and 
scrap.  But  there  was  not  a  blast  furnace  in  Pittsburgh  or 
its  vicinity  at  that  time,  its  first  furnace  not  being  built 
until  1859,  if  we  except  George  Anshutz's  little  furnace  on 
Two-mile  run.  Nor  was  the  manufacture  of  steel  at  Pitts- 
burgh in  1850  anything  else  than  an  infant  industry. 

In  1897  there  were  30  blast  furnaces  in  Allegheny  coun- 
ty, all  active,  and  64  rolling  mills  and  steel  works.  In 
1896  Allegheny  county  produced  more  pig  iron  and  rolled 
more  iron  and  steel  than  the  remainder  of  Pennsylvania,  and 
it  also  rolled  more  iron  and  steel  than  the  total  product  of 
Ohio,  Illinois,  and  Indiana.  In  the  same  year  it  made  over 
23  per  cent,  of  the  country's  total  production  of  pig  iron, 
over  41  per  cent,  of  our  total  production  of  Bessemer  steel, 


176  NOTES  AND   COMMENTS. 

over  43  per  cent,  of  our  total  production  of  open  hearth 
steel,  over  55  per  cent,  of  our  total  production  of  crucible 
steel,  and  over  30  per  cent,  of  our  total  production  of  rolled 
iron  and  steel.  Abraham  Lincoln  well  named  it  "the  State 
of  Allegheny." 

The  Nestor  of  the  Allegheny  county  iron  trade  is  the  Hon. 
B.  F.  Jones,  of  Pittsburgh,  the  head  of  the  enterprising  firm 
of  Jones  &  Laughlins,  who  has  been  actively  and  successful- 
ly engaged  in  the  manufacture  of  iron  and  steel  for  more 
than  fifty  years.  Much  of  the  prominence  that  Pittsburgh 
has  attained  as  an  iron  and  steel  centre  is  due  to  the  cre- 
ative and  executive  genius  of  Andrew  Carnegie,  who  has 
built  up  at  Pittsburgh  the  most  extensive  iron  and  steel  en- 
terprise in  the  United  States  and  perhaps  in  the  world.  Mr. 
Carnegie  has  been  ably  assisted  in  the  development  of  his 
vast  iron  and  steel  interests  by  his  partner,  Mr.  Henry  C. 
Frick,  who  had  previously  achieved  a  world-wide  reputation 
by  systematizing  and  greatly  expanding  the  Connellsville 
coke  industry. 

So  marvelous  has  been  the  development  of  the  iron  and 
steel  and  other  industries  of  Pittsburgh  and  its  vicinity,  so 
excellent  are  its  transportation  facilities,  and  so  great  are 
the  advantages  afforded  it  by  the  possession  of  natural  gas 
and  cheap  coal  and  coke,  that  the  future  progress  of  this 
industrial  centre  is  certain  to  attract  as  much  attention  as 
its  past  achievements.  Pittsburgh  is  an  industrial  wonder. 

The  information  contained  in  this  chapter  concerning 
Fort  Pitt  and  Fort  Fayette  has  been  mainly  derived  from 
Neville  B.  Craig's  History  of  Pittsburgh,  from  Dallas  Albert's 
Frontier  Forts  of  Western  Pennsylvania,  and  from  T.  J.  Chap- 
man's history  of  The  French  in  the  Allegheny  Valley. 


CHAPTER  XXIII. 

THE    RESTRICTION    OF   IMMIGRATION. 

IMMIGRATION  into  the  United  States  from  1789  to  1842 
never  exceeded  100,000  persons  annually,  and  seldom  came 
anywhere  near  that  number,  the  nearest  approach  to  100,- 
000  being  in  1840,  when  the  arrivals  of  alien  passengers 
numbered  84,066 ;  in  1841  they  numbered  80,289.  Down  to 
and  including  1855  immigrants  do  not  appear  to  have  been 
classified  separately  frops  other  alien  passengers,  but  virtu- 
ally all  such  passengers  were  immigrants.  The  total  num- 
ber of  alien  passengers  who  arrived  from  1789  to  1820  was 
about  250,000;  from  1821  to  1830  the  arrivals  numbered 
143,439;  and  from  1831  to  1840  they  numbered  599,125. 
In  1842  they  numbered  104,565.  In  the  next  two  years 
the  arrivals  declined  below  100,000  annually,  but  in  the  six 
succeeding  fiscal  years,  ending  on  September  30,  1850,  they 
rapidly  increased,  owing  to  the  Irish  famine,  the  revolution- 
ary movements  in  various  European  countries,  the  demand 
in  this  country  for  labor  to  build  railroads,  and  the  discov- 
ery of  gold  in  California.  In  the  six  fiscal  years  referred  to 
the  arrivals  of  aliens  were  as  follows :  1845,  114,371 ;  1846, 
154,416 ;  1847,  234,968 ;  1848,  226,527 ;  1849,  297,024;  1850, 
310,004:  total  in  six  years,  1,337,310. 

The  six  years  from  1845  to  1850  mark  the  beginning  of 
the  flood  of  immigration  which  has  ever  since  annually 
brought  to  our  shores  large  numbers  of  persons  of  all  classes 
and  conditions  from  every  clime  under  the  sun.  In  the  ten 


178  NOTES  AND   COMMENTS. 

calendar  years  from  1851  to  1860  there  arrived  in  the  Unit- 
ed States  2,579,520  immigrants  and  alien  passengers ;  in  the 
ten  years  from  1861  to  1870  the  arrivals  of  immigrants 
alone  numbered  2,450,520  ;  in  the  ten  years  from  1871  to 
1880  they  numbered  2,944,695 ;  in  the  ten  years  from  1881 
to  1890  they  numbered  5,176,212  ;  and  in  the  six  years 
from  1891  to  1896  they  numbered  2,513,051.  In  1880  the 
arrivals  for  the  first  time  exceeded  half  a  million,  number- 
ing 593,703.  In  the  next  two  years  the  wave  of  immigra- 
tion rose  still  higher,  the  arrivals  in  1881  being  720,045  and 
in  1882  reaching  730,349.  In  the  three  years  mentioned  the 
arrivals  numbered  2,044,097 — an  astonishing  total.  During 
the  one  hundred  and  eight  years  from  1789  to  1896  the  to- 
tal number  of  alien  passengers  and  immigrants  who  arrived 
in  the  United  States  was  18,369,813. 

The  census  of  1890  showed  that,  of  a  total  population  of 
62,622,250  in  the  census  year  1890,  exclusive  of  Indians, 
9,249,547  were  of  foreign  birth,  as  compared  with  6,679,943 
of  foreign  birth  in  a  similar  total  population  of  50,155,783 
in  the  census  year  1880.  The  percentage  of  our  foreign 
born  population  in  1890  was  14.77,  as  compared  with  13.32 
in  1880. 

As  late  as  the  Centennial  year,  1876,  very  few  immigrants 
came  from  Italy  or  from  any  of  the  Slavic  countries,  but  in 
the  two  decades  which  have  since  elapsed  the  arrivals  from 
Italy,  Bohemia,  Hungary,  Russia,  and  Poland  have  aggre- 
gated about  two  millions.  Of  the  immigrants  arriving  in 
1876  Austria  sent  us  6,047 ;  Hungary,  475 ;  Italy,  2,980 ; 
Russia,  6,787  (principally  Mennonites  of  German  origin)  ; 
and  Poland,  854.  Beginning  with  1880  the  arrivals  from 
Italy  and  the  Slavic  countries  rapidly  increased.  In  the 


THE  RESTRICTION  OF  IMMIGRATION.  179 

six  years  from  1891  to  1896,  inclusive,  we  received  1,040,- 
614  immigrants  from  Bohemia,  Hungary,  and  other  Aus- 
trian provinces  and  from  Russia, Poland,  and  Italy;  174,034 
came  from  Bohemia  and  Hungary,  160,112  from  other  Aus- 
trian provinces,  282,387  from  Russia,  67,700  from  Poland, 
and  356,381  from  Italy :  total,  1,040,614. 

From  January  1, 1853,  to  June  30, 1888,  a  period  of  al- 
most thirty-six  years,  288,775  Chinese  immigrants  arrived 
in  this  country,  of  whom  279,885  were  males  and  8,890 
were  females.  The  largest  number  arriving  in  any  year  was 
in  the  fiscal  year  1882,  when  39,463  males  and  116  females 
came.  The  effect  of  the  passage  of  the  several  Chinese  im- 
migration acts,  the  first  of  which  went  into  effect  in  Au- 
gust, 1882,  has  been  very  marked,  the  number  of  immigrants 
immediately  declining,  until  in  the  fiscal  year  1887  only  8 
males  and  2  females  arrived  in  this  country  at  ports  of 
entry.  In  the  fiscal  year  1888  the  arrivals  at  these  ports 
amounted  to  26,  of  which  21  were  males  and  5  were  fe- 
males. To  the  official  figures  since  1882  must  be  added  an 
unknown  number  of  Chinese  immigrants  who  have  illegally 
crossed  the  border  from  British  Columbia  and  Mexico. 

Opposition  to  the  immigration  of  foreigners  manifested  it- 
self over  fifty  years  ago  in  occasional  riotous  demonstrations, 
chiefly  directed,  however,  against  Roman  Catholics  of  Irish 
birth.  In  1844  there  was  an  outbreak  in  Philadelphia  of 
intense  hostility  to  the  immigration  of  these  persons  and  to 
all  adherents  of  the  Roman  Catholic  faith,  which  ended  in  a 
bloody  riot.  The  waves  of  this  outbreak  extended  to  many 
other  cities  and  to  many  towns  and  rural  communities,  and 
for  a  time  there  was  a  great  deal  of  what  was  known  as 
Native  American  sentiment  throughout  the  country.  It 


180  NOTES  AND   COMMENTS. 

almost  died  out,  however,  during  the  Mexican  war,  and  in 
the  Presidential  campaign  of  1848,  when  a  Mexican  war  hero 
was  the  successful  candidate,  we  heard  nothing  of  it.  Strict- 
ly speaking  this  Native  American  sentiment  partook  more  of 
the  nature  of  religious  persecution  than  of  hostility  to  for- 
eigners as  such,  although  it  embodied  also  a  strong  feeling 
of  hostility  to  the  granting  of  citizenship  to  foreigners  of  any 
faith  until  they  had  lived  twenty-one  years  in  the  country. 
The  immigration  of  paupers  and  criminals  was  also  con- 
demned by  the  Native  American  sentiment  of  1844. 

In  1852,  when  General  Scott  and  General  Pierce  were  the 
opposing  candidates  for  the  Presidency,  there  was  a  revival 
of  interest  in  the  Native  American  issues  of  1844,  but  not 
enough  to  seriously  influence  the  public  mind.  But  in  1854 
there  was  a  fierce  and  widespread  display  of  hostility  to 
citizens  of  foreign  birth  and  to  all  Roman  Catholics,  the 
principal  ground  of  opposition  being  the  assumed  unfitness 
of  either  class  to  hold  any  political  office.  Such  mottoes  as 
"America  for  Americans "  and  "  Put  none  but  Americans 
on  guard  "  were  the  shibboleths  of  the  new  party,  which  was 
popularly  known  as  the  Know  Nothing  party.  In  the  year 
last  mentioned  it  swept  all  opposition  before  it,  and  in  1855 
it  was  still  a  powerful  organization,  but  in  1856  it  virtually 
gave  way  to  the  rising  Republican  party,  which  absorbed 
most  of  its  members.  The  slavery  question  and  soon  after- 
wards the  civil  war  left  no  room  for  religious  prejudices  or 
distinctions  of  birth.  When  the  first  shot  was  fired  at  Fort 
Sumter,  on  April  12,  1861,  a  new  political  issue,  which  swal- 
lowed up  all  others,  was  at  once  created.  Opposition  to  im- 
migration practically  ceased  also  for  the  special  reason  that 
many  foreigners  fought  in  the  Union  ranks. 


THE  RESTRICTION  OF  IMMIGRATION.  181 

Many  years  have  passed  since  Sumter  was  fired  upon. 
In  the  mam  the  country  has  been  very  prosperous  during 
this  period.  But  there  have  been  intervals  of  serious  busi- 
ness depression,  and  the  causes  of  this  depression  have  been 
much  discussed  and  remedies  for  real  or  supposed  evils  have 
been  anxiously  sought.  The  conviction  has  gradually  ob- 
tained a  place  in  the  minds  of  many  of  our  people  that  all 
business  depression  in  this  country  is  greatly  aggravated  by 
foreign  immigration,  resulting  in  an  over-supply  of  labor  in 
all  employments,  especially  in  periods  of  depression.  Un- 
restricted immigration  is  also  responsible  for  the  presence 
among  us  of  thousands  of  idle  and  vicious  foreigners  who 
have  not  come  here  to  ^work  for  a  living  but  to  stir  up  strife 
and  to  commit  crime.  It  is  also  responsible  for  the  attempt 
to  naturalize  upon  American  soil  those  two  most  pernicious 
foes  of  social  order  and  national  and  individual  well-being, 
namely,  an  unrestrained  liquor  traffic  and  a  Sunday  devot- 
ed to  dissipation  and  amusements.  It  has  also  brought  in  its 
train  a  vast  amount  of  the  densest  ignorance  and  of  squalid 
poverty  and  incurable  wretchedness,  our  great  cities  suffering 
the  most  from  these  enemies  of  a  true  civilization. 

As  one  consequence  of  the  unhealthy  influences  to  which 
we  have  referred  there  has  been  within  the  last  twenty  years 
a  revival  of  interest  in  one  of  the  Native  American  issues 
of  1844  and  1854,  namely,  hostility  to  unrestricted  immigra- 
tion. It  has  not  taken  the  form  of  opposition  to  foreigners 
because  they  are  foreigners,  as  in  other  years,  but  of  oppo- 
sition to  the  immigration  of  contract  laborers,  paupers,  crim- 
inals, socialists,  illiterates,  and  all  foreigners  whose  antece- 
dents and  practices  tend  to  the  subversion  of  the  wholesome 
traditions  and  customs  of  our  country.  Many  of  our  for- 


182  NOTES  AND   COMMENTS. 

eign-born  citizens  heartily  sympathize  with  this  sentiment. 
In  1882  we  very  wisely  prohibited  Chinese  immigration.  In 
1885  we  prohibited  the  importation  of  all  contract  laborers, 
although  the  act  relating  to  this  subject  is  robbed  of  much 
of  its  force  by  the  ease  with  which  contracts  are  made  with 
immigrants  after  their  arrival  at  New  York.  In  1891  we 
prohibited  the  immigration  of  paupers,  criminals,  and  those 
who  are  mentally  or  physically  diseased.  These  restrictive 
measures  show  the  drift  of  public  opinion  a  few  years  ago. 

But  more  recently  there  has  been  manifested  a  widespread 
demand  that  these  measures  be  supplemented  by  more  vigor- 
ous restrictive  legislation  which  will  fully  embody  the  prin- 
ciple that  the  people  of  this  country  should  be  more  thor- 
oughly protected  against  the  unloading  upon  our  shores  of 
European  paupers,  criminals,  mischief-makers,  and  European 
scum  generally.  This  sentiment  is  not  an  echo  of  the  pre- 
scriptive spirit  of  1844  and  1854,  but  it  will  not  be  denied 
that,  if  the  restrictions  which  the  Native  American  party 
desired  to  place  upon  the  immigration  of  paupers  and  crim- 
inals had  been  adopted  and  enforced  when  they  were  sug- 
gested and  subsequently,  our  cities  and  large  towns  and  our 
mining  and  manufacturing  districts  would  not  to-day  be 
afflicted  with  persons  that  Europe  is  glad  to  get  rid  of. 

The  agitation  for  more  restrictive  immigration  legislation 
resulted  in  the  passage  by  the  Fifty-fourth  Congress  of  a 
bill  imposing  an  educational  test,  which  excluded,  with  lim- 
ited exceptions,  all  persons  who  can  not  read  and  write  the 
English  language  or  some  other  language.  This  bill  was 
vetoed  by  President  Cleveland  on  March  2,  1897.  In  the 
House  the  bill  was  passed  over  the  veto  the  next  day  by 
193  yeas  to  37  nays,  but  the  consideration  of  the  veto  was 


THE  RESTRICTION  OF  IMMIGRATION.  183 

not  reached  in  the  Senate  before  the  final  adjournment  of 
Congress.  The  bill  therefore  failed  to  become  a  law. 

It  was  well  to  preserve  free  territory  for  free  men ;  it  was 
well  to  emancipate  our  African  slaves ;  but  an  equally  im- 
portant duty  was  neglected  when  we  failed  after  the  civil 
war  to  check  the  immigration  into  our  country  of  persons 
who  were  in  no  way  fitted  to  become  American  citizens. 

Instead  of  checking  undesirable  immigration  the  Govern- 
ment of  the  United  States  encouraged  unrestricted  immigra- 
tion until  a  few  years  ago.  Land  grants  to  railroad  com- 
panies led  to  extraordinary  efforts  by  steamship  companies, 
in  collusion  with  the  land-grant  companies,  to  fill  the  holds 
of  their  vessels  with  steerage  passengers  of  every  description. 
In  1871  the  Treasury  Department  published  a  volume  of 
about  250  pages,  entitled  Information  for  Immigrants,  which 
was  scattered  broadcast  over  Europe,  and  which  described  in 
glowing  terms  the  opportunities  offered  by  this  country  to 
the  people  of  other  countries.  It  was  a  most  mischievous 
publication.  Some  of  the  States  have  also  scattered  alluring 
advertisements  throughout  Europe,  printed  in  several  langua- 
ges. The  efforts  of  the  railroad  companies  and  of  the  steam- 
ship companies  to  stimulate  immigration  have  not  by  any 
means  been  abandoned.  Immigration  should  have  been  sub- 
jected to  governmental  regulation  and  restriction  many  years 
ago,  when  it  first  began  to  manifest  evil  tendencies,  and  it 
should  never  have  been  forced  or  stimulated  by  government 
land  grants  or  in  any  of  the  other  ways  we  have  briefly 
described.  As  a  nation  we  have  had  in  the  last  thirty  years 
an  abnormal  and  unhealthy  instead  of  a  normal  and  healthy 
growth.  One  result  is  that  we  have  no  longer  a  homogene- 
ous population  as  we  had  down  to  about  1840. 


CHAPTER  XXIV. 

THE    DEIFT    OF    POPULATION   TO    THE   GKEAT   CITIES. 

AN  evil  of  our  day  in  the  United  States  and  in  some 
other  countries  is  the  steady  drift  of  population  from  the 
country  to  the  city.  The  census  of  1890  showed  that  nearly 
one-third  of  the  people  of  this  country  then  lived  in  cities 
having  a  population  of  8,000  or  over,  and  the  drift  from 
the  country  to  the  city  has  since  doubtless  increased.  Dur- 
ing the  hundred  years  from  1790  to  1890  the  proportion  of 
our  population  residing  in  cities  having  8,000  inhabitants  or 
over  increased  from  3.35  per  cent,  to  29.20  per  cent.  The 
number  of  cities  having  a  population  of  more  than  8,000  in- 
creased from  six  in  1790  to  286  in  1880  and  to  448  in  1890. 

• 

There  ought,  however,  to  come  a  time  when  there  will  be  a 
reaction  from  this  tendency  to  desert  the  country  and  crowd 
into  the  cities.  Much  of  the  flitting  from  the  country  to  the 
city  which  is  continually  taking  place  is  the  result  of  an 
obtuseness  of  vision  which  fails  to  discern  where  the  advan- 
tages of  the  country  end  and  the  disadvantages  of  the  city 
begin.  With  a  clearer  vision  most  of  those  who  exchange 
the  country  for  the  city  would  remain  where  first  their  lot 
in  life  was  cast — in  the  country  town  if  not  literally  in  the 
country  itself.  The  hard  lines  of  city  life  for  millions  of 
city  poor,  including  those  who  are  regularly  employed  but 
who  find  it  hard  to  make  both  ends  meet,  must  surely  some 
day  bring  this  clearer  vision  to  other  millions  whose  homes 
are  "far  from  the  madding  crowd's  ignoble  strife." 


THE  DRIFT  TO  THE  GREAT  CITIES.  185 

Men  do  not  now  need  to  go  to  the  city  to  secure  for 
themselves  and  their  families  the  advantages  of  polite  soci- 
ety, good  schools,  libraries,  lectures,  and  all  home  comforts 
and  luxuries.  These  are  now  as  accessible  to  the  dwellers 
in  most  country  towns  and  to  most  good  farmers  as  to  the 
dwellers  in  cities.  Enterprising  villages  and  towns  now  dot 
every  State  in  the  Union,  and  emulate  with  more  or  less 
success  the  social,  business,  and  intellectual  life  of  our  great 
cities.  The  showy  Queen  Anne  house,  the  daily  newspaper, 
the  telegraph,  the  telephone,  and  the  latest  fashions  for  dress 
are  everywhere.  That  great  civilizer,  the  railroad,  leads  the 
way  to  universal  progress.  The  town  upon  a  leading  rail- 
road route  learns  from  .the  city,  and  the  wide-awake  farmer 
and  his  wife  and  children  meet  city  influences  whenever 
they  go  to  town. 

The  fact  is  not  so  generally  recognized  as  it  should  be 
that,  by  means  of  the  wider  circulation  of  money,  consequent 
upon  the  extension  of  railroads,  the  opening  of  new  mines, 
and  the  building  of  new  factories  and  workshops,  the  com- 
forts of  life  are  more  generally  diffused  in  the  country  than 
in  the  cities.  It  is  a  fact  well  established  that  nowhere  are 
there  to-day  such  sunken  eyes,  such  threadbare  garments, 
such  "  looped  and  windowed  raggedness,"  such  utter  desti- 
tution and  wretchedness,  such  dire  despair,  as  in  the  city. 
In  country  towns  and  in  farmers'  homes  the  city  extremes 
of  abject  poverty  and  princely  affluence  are  seldom  found. 
There  is  greater  pecuniary  and  social  equality.  Carpets  now 
cover  the  floors  of  the  humblest  rural  homes,  and  those  who 
occupy  these  homes  no  longer  dress  in  homespun,  nor  are 
many  of  them  compelled  to  deny  themselves  the  best  food 
the  farm  and  garden  afford.  All  the  little  appliances,  too, 


186  NOTES  AND   COMMENTS. 

which  tend  to  make  home  cheerful  and  to  lighten  the  labors 
of  those  who  have  the  keeping  of  the  home  are  as  accessible 
in  the  country  as  in  the  city  and  at  prices  within  the  reach 
of  all.  In  most  of  the  houses  in  small  towns  it  is  now  pos- 
sible to  have  all  the  heating  and  lighting  and  sanitary  con- 
veniences that  are  to  be  found  in  city  houses. 

Farmers  particularly  are  large  gainers  by  the  progressive 
ideas  of  the  last  fifty  years.  Much  of  the  severe  labor  that 
was  once  necessary  to  make  the  farm  profitable  is  now  ren- 
dered unnecessary  by  the  numerous  mechanical  appliances 
that  are  everywhere  in  use.  Not  only  labor  but  time  also  is 
thus  saved,  affording  opportunity  to  old  and  young  for  study, 
for  recreation,  and  for  the  cultivation  of  the  graces  and 
amenities  of  life.  The  improvements  in  agricultural  imple- 
ments have  greatly  contributed  to  the  farmer's  productive 
power,  while  the  railroads  and  the  manufacturing  enterprise 
of  his  countrymen  have  given  him,  as  a  rule,  a  good  home 
market  for  all  that  he  has  to  sell — for  every  dozen  of  eggs, 
pound  of  butter,  gallon  of  milk,  and  bunch  of  vegetables,  as 
well  as  for  the  more  important  crops  of  the  farm.  With  all 
these  beneficent  results  of  our  advancing  civilization  he  has 
no  rent  to  pay  and  the  tax-gatherer  deals  gently  with  his  pos- 
sessions. If  he  sometimes  receives  low  prices  for  the  products 
he  has  to  sell  he  pays  low  prices  for  all  that  he  has  to  buy. 
Hence  he  is  usually  prosperous,  notwithstanding  all  that  is 
said  to  the  contrary,  and  with  his  prosperity  come  many  of 
the  advantages  which  make  city  life  attractive.  From  few  of 
these  is  he  now  debarred.  Why  should  he  seek  comfort  and 
happiness  and  the  amplest  development  in  the  great  city  ? 
He  may  have  them  where  he  is,  for  himself  and  his  children, 
if  he  but  make  good  use  of  his  opportunities  and  be  thor- 


THE  DRIFT  TO  THE  GREAT  CITIES.  187 

oughly  in  harmony  with  the  spirit  of  the  age  in  which  he 
lives.  Let  the  wide-awake  farmer  look  around  him ! 

Frequent  intercourse  between  farmers  and  between  farm- 
ers and  those  who  live  in  towns  is  more  easily  accomplished 
now  than  formerly.  There  are  better  means  of  communica- 
tion than  once  existed,  although  good  roads  are  still  sorely 
needed.  The  increasing  number  of  farmers,  notwithstanding 
the  drift  to  the  city,  is  gradually  shortening  the  distance 
from  one  farmer's  fireside  to  that  of  another,  and  our  in- 
crease in  population  is  multiplying  towns  and  villages  and 
bringing  nearer  to  the  farmer  all  the  intellectual  and  social 
advantages  which  he  and  his  family  may  derive  from  them. 

Lectures  have  been  mentioned  as  among  the  advantages 
of  city  life  that  are  possessed  by  the  country.  Nearly  every 
village  in  the  land  may  have  its  course  of  literary  or  scien- 
tific lectures  once  a  year  if  it  will.  The  farmers'  club,  which 
is  popular  in  many  States  and  which  should  everywhere  be 
established  where  farms  are  not  too  widely  separated,  is  an 
enlargement  of  the  lecture  system  that  furnishes  not  only 
lectures  and  essays  but  also  profitable  discussions,  social  re- 
unions, and  exhibitions  of  the  products  of  the  farm  and  gar- 
den. The  isolation  and  the  loneliness  of  the  farmer's  life  and 
its  lack  of  inspiration  to  intellectual  effort  are  old  objections 
to  living  on  a  farm  which  the  farmers'  club  is  well  calcu- 
lated to  remove. 

Every  town  and  village  which  has  had  an  existence  for 
fifty  or  a  hundred  years,  and  therefore  has  a  history  of  its 
own,  should  establish  and  maintain  a  museum  of  natural 
curiosities  and  historical  relics,  and  every  town  and  village 
possessing  a  sufficient  population,  and  whether  old  or  new, 
should  have  a  public  library  and  at  least  the  beginning  of 


188  NOTES  AND  COMMENTS. 

an  art  gallery.  The  museum  could  be  joined  to  the  library 
and  the  art  gallery.  If  people  in  rural  communities  and 
small  towns  would  only  sit  down  to  study  this  matter  they 
would  be  surprised  to  discover  how  far  a  little  money  and 
effort  will  go  in  securing  the  objects  mentioned,  and  with 
these  objects  attained  they  would  soon  be  further  surprised 
to  witness  their  elevating  and  every  way  beneficial  effects. 
There  might,  for  instance,  be  fewer  saloons  if  there  were 
more  town  libraries  and  museums  and  art  galleries. 

When  the  rich  men  whose  homes  are  in  the  city  place 
their  money  and  their  influence,  as  many  of  them  are  now 
doing,  in  the  scale  in  behalf  of  clean  and  wide  streets,  large 
and  small  parks,  the  planting  of  shade  trees,  and  every 
other  measure  calculated  to  foster  rural  taste  and  to  scatter 
rural  delights  among  all  classes  of  their  fellow-citizens,  and, 
above  all,  when  they  resolve  to  spend  their  summers  in  the 
quiet  suburbs  of  a  great  city,  they  unconsciously  pay  a  de- 
served tribute  to  the  advantages  possessed  by  the  country 
and  the  country  town  and  to  the  blessings  which  come  to 
him  who  has  made  good  use  of  these  advantages. 

In  these  days  of  widespread  discontent  with  social  condi- 
tions, which  is  perhaps  more  strongly  marked  among  farm- 
ers and  in  small  communities  than  in  the  cities,  we  entreat 
all  who  have  homes  of  their  own,  either  in  the  country  or 
in  the  town  of  a  few  hundred  or  a  few  thousand  inhabitants, 
not  to  lightly  value  the  blessings  which  they  owe  to  those 
homes.  Be  they  ever  so  humble  let  their  owners  hold  fast 
to  them  as  if  they  were  veritable  palaces  compared  with  the 
restricted  accommodations  and  mean  surroundings  that  char- 
acterize the  large  majority  of  the  homes  of  a  great  city. 


CHAPTER  XXV. 

THE    WESTERN    FARMERS'    DISCONTENT. 

THE  Populist  advocate  sees  but  one  side  of  the  farmers' 
question,  and  that  is  the  side  of  those  who  are  discontented. 
He  does  not  tell  us  of  the  far  larger  number  of  Western 
farmers  who  are  contented  with  their  lot  and  satisfied  with 
their  rewards.  Nor  does  he  impartially  seek  to  discover 
how  far  the  existing  discontent  is  the  result  of  causes  which 
are  beyond  the  farmers*' control  or  anybody's  control.  That 
many  farmers  have  not  been  prosperous  may  be  frankly  ad- 
mitted, but  the  Populist  makes  a  grave  mistake  when  he  as- 
sumes that  this  lack  of  prosperity  is  the  result  of  bad  treat- 
ment of  the  farmers  by  other  classes  of  their  countrymen. 
If  he  had  not  looked  so  exclusively  at  one  side  of  his  subject 
he  would  not  have  reached  this  unwise  and  unjust  conclusion. 

Most  Populists  make  prominent  the  charge  that  the  farm- 
ers have  been  injured  by  legislation  in  favor  of  other  indus- 
tries than  that  of  agriculture,  mentioning  particularly  our 
manufacturing  industries,  shipbuilding,  and  banking,  while 
agriculture  itself  has  received  no  special  legislative  privile- 
ges whatever.  Admitting  for  the  sake  of  argument  that 
the  allegation  is  true  that  special  legislative  privileges  have 
been  accorded  to  the  manufacturer,  the  shipbuilder,  and  the 
banker,  it  does  not  follow  that  the  benefits  of  these  privile- 
ges have  not  been  shared  by  the  farmer. 

If  protective  tariff  legislation  has  built  up  domestic  man- 
ufactures have  not  the  mills  and  furnaces  and  factories  and 


190  NOTES  AND  COMMENTS. 

workshops  created  by  this  legislation  greatly  increased  the 
demand  for  agricultural  products  ?  Have  not  the  farmers' 
markets  grown  with  the  wonderful  development  of  our  man- 
ufacturing industries?  Every  intelligent  farmer  knows  that 
protective  tariff  legislation  has  had  just  this  effect.  And  he 
also  knows  that  this  legislation,  by  developing  our  resources 
and  creating  competition  in  all  manufacturing  pursuits,  has 
cheapened  the  cost  of  transporting  agricultural  products  to 
both  domestic  and  foreign  markets,  cheapened  the  cost  of  ag- 
ricultural implements,  and  cheapened  the  cost  of  everything 
that  the  farmer  has  to  buy.  We  could  fill  these  pages  with 
figures  to  prove  the  cheapening  effects  of  protective  tariff 
legislation  upon  all  manufactured  products.  If  the  results 
of  this  legislation  to  the  farmer  have  been  such  as  we  have 
described  what  is  there  in  that  legislation  that  he  has  to 
complain  of  ? 

And  so  of  such  little  legislation  as  we  have  had  in  the  in- 
terest of  American  shipbuilding.  By  encouraging  the  build- 
ing of  American  steamships  and  promoting  the  establishment 
of  American  steamship  lines  to  foreign  countries  we  have  in- 
creased the  facilities  for  transporting  our  surplus  agricultural 
products  to  foreign  markets.  The  farmer  is  really  the  chief 
beneficiary  of  this  policy,  for  the  more  markets  he  has  the 
better  off  he  is.  Our  Government  should  help  to  establish 
steamship  lines  that  would  run  to  all  parts  of  the  world. 
This  is  what  Great  Britain  has  long  done. 

And  so  also  of  the  special  privileges  which  have  been 
granted  by  Congress  to  national  banks.  Originating  in  the 
necessities  of  the  Government  when  the  very  life  of  the  na- 
tion was  at  stake  these  privileges  have  been  continued  in 
the  interest  of  the  whole  people  of  the  United  States,  to 


THE  WESTERN  FARMERS'  DISCONTENT.  191 

whom  safe  banking  facilities  and  bank  notes  that  are  worth 
their  face  value  are  absolute  necessities.  The  free  banking 
law  which  has  long  been  in  force  permits  any  community  of 
commercial  importance  to  have  a  national  bank  if  it  has 
sufficient  enterprise  and  capital,  and  the  original  national 
banking  law  and  its  supplements  guarantee  the  holder  of 
every  national  bank  note  against  any  loss  by  the  failure  of 
the  bank  which  issues  it.  How  much  better  is  this  system 
for  everybody,  the  farmer  included,  than  the  old  wild-cat  and 
red-dog  system  of  banking,  which  gave  us  notes  issued  by 
irresponsible  speculators  in  human  credulity — notes  that  ev- 
erybody dreaded  to  keep  over  night  for  fear  that  the  banks 
which  issued  them  wouM  break  before  morning.  Surely  our 
national  banking  system  has  been  of  immense  benefit  to  the 
farmer  in  enabling  him  to  get  good  money  for  all  the  prod- 
ucts of  his  farm. 

Have  special  privileges,  or,  rather,  has  special  legislation, 
been  withheld  from  the  farmer?  The  facts  do  not  sustain 
this  plea.  We  invite  attention  to  a  few  subjects  of  national 
legislation  which  refute  the  argument  that  the  farmer  has 
been  neglected  by  those  who  have  made  the  country's  laws. 

The  homestead  law  was  enacted  many  years  ago  for  the 
special  benefit  of  farmers  and  of  intending  farmers  who  were 
not  able  to  buy  improved  farms.  By  means  of  this  law 
large  sections  in  the  West  have  been  opened  to  agriculture 
and  civilization,  and  thousands  and  tens  of  thousands  of  poor 
men  have  been  enabled  to  secure  for  themselves  and  their 
families  farms  and  homes  which  otherwise  they  never  would 
have  owned.  That  these  farms  might  be  tilled  in  peace  the 
Government  has  protected  their  owners  against  Indian  incur- 
sions by  maintaining  a  standing  army  on  the  Indian  frontier. 


192  NOTES  AND   COMMENTS. 

That  the  farmer  with  little  money  and  his  family  might 
reach  the  Great  West  the  Government  adopted  the  policy  of 
giving  away  millions  of  acres  of  beautiful  prairie  to  corpo- 
rations which  would  agree  to  build  railroads  through  the  em- 
pires that  had  been  given  to  them.  By  means  of  these  rail- 
roads the  farmer  with  little  money  could  first  reach  the  farm 
that  was  waiting  for  him  and  which  was  to  cost  him  noth- 
ing, or  which  he  would  buy  from  the  railroad  builders  at  a 
low  price,  and  afterwards  could  send  to  a  distant  market 
the  crops  that  would  be  grown  upon  his  farm. 

Many  years  ago  the  Department  of  Agriculture  was  es- 
tablished as  a  separate  branch  of  the  Government  for  the 
special  benefit  of  the  farmer.  Seeds  were  given  to  him, 
books  were  printed  for  him,  and  the  condition  of  his  crops 
and  his  live  stock  and  his  chances  of  getting  good  prices  for 
all  that  he  had  to  sell  were  paternally  and  thoroughly  in- 
quired into.  All  this  is  done  to-day — more  of  it  to-day  than 
ever.  Even  the  control  of  the  weather  bureau  has  been 
transferred  to  this  department  largely  for  the  benefit  of  the 
farmers.  The  head  of  this  department  has  a  seat  in  the 
President's  Cabinet.  The  whole  people  pay  the  expenses  of 
this  separate  department  of  the  Government,  amounting  to 
millions  of  dollars  annually.  But  there  are  no  similar  de- 
partments to  care  for  the  interests  of  manufacturers,  miners, 
shipbuilders,  or  any  other  industrial  classes  of  the  country. 

And,  then,  there  are  the  agricultural  colleges,  for  the  edu- 
cation of  farmers'  sons  and  daughters,  which  are  to  be  found 
in  every  State,  and  which  were  established  and  endowed  by 
grants  of  public  lands  by  act  of  Congress  many  years  ago, 
the  lands  being  the  property  of  the  whole  people  of  the 
United  States. 


THE  WESTERN  FARMERS'  DISCONTENT.  193 

The  interstate  commerce  law  was  enacted  a  few  years  ago 
with  the  special  object  of  so  regulating  the  freight  charges 
on  farmers'  products  that  these  charges  should  not  become 
extortionate.  Nobody  else  but  farmers  strongly  urged  the 
passage  of  this  law,  and  they  got  just  what  they  asked  for. 

Our  protective  tariff  legislation  has  not  been  exclusively 
for  the  benefit  of  manufacturers.  It  has  also  been  for  the 
special  benefit  of  farmers.  The  more  important  products  of 
the  farm  have  always  in  this  legislation  been  protected 
against  foreign  competition.  Our  wool-growing  industry  has 
been  almost  wholly  created  by  this  legislation,  while  wheat, 
corn,  oats,  barley,  butter,  cheese,  horses,  cattle,  and  many 
other  farm  products  have  long  been  subject  to  protective  du- 
ties which  shield  the  farmer  from  Canadian  and  other  com- 
petition. In  the  framing  of  the  McKinley  and  the  Dingley 
tariffs  no  duties  received  more  careful  attention  than  those 
which  affect  the  farmers'  products.  The  reciprocity  features 
of  these  two  protective  tariffs  were  inserted  chiefly  to  secure 
enlarged  markets  for  all  that  our  farmers  have  to  sell.  For 
the  first  time  in  the  history  of  the  country  a  bounty  was 
authorized  by  the  McKinley  tariff  to  be  paid  directly  from 
the  public  treasury  to  stimulate  an  agricultural  industry,  the 
production  of  sugar.  The  whole  -people  of  the  country  have 
had  to  pay  this  sugar  bounty. 

It  is  neither  correct  nor  gracious,  therefore,  for  Populists 
to  assert,  or  to  imply,  that  the  interests  of  American  farm- 
ers have  been  neglected  in  our  protective  tariff  legislation,  or 
that  other  classes  of  the  community  have  been  favored  in 
this  legislation  at  the  expense  of  American  farmers.  What- 
ever may  be  the  burdens  of  any  of  our  fanners  to-day  they 
are  not  traceable  to  protective  tariff  legislation.  Until  the 


194  NOTES  AND  COMMENTS. 

Wilson  tariff  succeeded  the  McKinley  tariff  in  1894  Ameri- 
can farmers  received  their  full  share  of  friendly  legislation. 

The  cause  of  hard  times  for  the  farmers  of  the  West  lies 
deeper ;  there  have  been  too  many  farmers  for  the  markets 
that  were  at  their  command.  By  our  land-grant  policy  the 
business  of  opening  up  new  farms  in  the  mighty  West  has 
been  overdone,  and  excessive  competition  in  wheat-growing 
and  corn-growing  has  in  recent  years  brought  down  the  pri- 
ces of  both  these  products  lower  than  they  should  have  been. 
No  right-thinking  man  wants  any  farmer  to  grow  wheat  for 
fifty  cents  a  bushel  or  corn  for  twenty  cents. 

In  what  has  been  said  above  we  have  purposely  avoided 
any  reference  to  the  alleged  demonetization  of  silver  as  one 
of  the  causes  of  the  discontent  of  Western  farmers.  That  is- 
sue has  been  sufficiently  discussed.  The  silver  question,  how- 
ever, would  never  have  been  the  bone  of  contention  that  it 
has  been  if  Western  farmers  could  have  realized  in  recent 
years  better  prices  for  their  products  than  they  have  receiv- 
ed. That  they  did  not  realize  better  prices  is  du.e  mainly  to 
the  fact  that  there  has  been  an  overproduction  of  agricultur- 
al products,  just  as  there  has  been  an  overproduction  of  iron 
and  steel  and  other  manufactured  products.  The  silver  issue 
has  simply  served  to  emphasize  the  Western  farmers'  discon- 
tent. Our  real  trouble  in  late  years  has  been  overproduction 
of  agricultural  as  well  as  manufactured  products.  Our  ca- 
pacity to  produce  has  more  than  kept  pace  with  our  ability 
to  consume. 


CHAPTER   XXVI. 

HISTORY    OF    RECIPROCITY    LEGISLATION. 

As  THE  subject  of  reciprocity  in  our  trade  relations  with 
foreign  countries  is  virtually  a  new  feature  in  our  tariff 
legislation  we  give  below  the  history  of  the  insertion  of  the 
reciprocity  policy  in  the  McKinley  tariff  of  1890. 

When  the  Ways  and  Means  Committee  of  the  House  of 
Representatives  framed  J;he  tariff  bill  which  afterwards,  with 
amendments,  became  the  tariff  act  of  1890  it  placed  all  sug- 
ar in  the  free  list,  except  the  very  small  quantity  of  refined 
sugar  above  number  16  Dutch  standard  that  might  be  im- 
ported. At  the  same  time,  that  our  sugar  industry  should 
not  lack  protection,  the  committee  provided  a  bounty  of  two 
cents  a  pound  for  the  producers  of  cane,  beet,  and  sorghum 
sugar  testing  at  least  85  degrees  by  the  polariscope.  The 
bill  made  no  reference  to  reciprocity.  It  passed  the  House 
on  May  21, 1890,  with  the  sugar  bounty  provision  included. 
It  was  referred  to  the  Senate  Committee  on  Finance  on  May 
23  and  reported  from  that  committee  to  the  Senate  on  June 
18,  with  amendments,  but  with  the  sugar  bounty  provision 
unchanged,  except  that  it  was  made  to  apply  to  maple  sugar. 
No  reference  was  made  to  reciprocity.  That  feature  was 
also  omitted  from  a  second  revision  of  the  bill  by  the  Com- 
mittee on  Finance,  which  revision  was  reported  back  to  the 
Senate  on  September  6. 

On  September  10  the  bill  passed  the  Senate,  and  it  then 
for  the  first  time  contained  the  reciprocity  provision,  which 


196  NOTES  AND   COMMENTS. 

was  inserted  at  the  instance  of  Mr.  Elaine,  the  Secretary 
of  State,  supported  by  President  Harrison.  In  the  bill  as  it 
passed  the  Senate  the  House  bounty  of  two  cents  a  pound 
on  sugar  was  left  unchanged  except  that  the  maple  sugar 
amendment  was  approved.  In  the  conference  committee  the 
Senate  reciprocity  amendment  was  approved,  but  the  sugar 
bounty  was  changed  so  that  the  producers  of  sugar  testing 
90  degrees  and  upwards  should  receive  two  cents  a  pound, 
while  the  producers  of  sugar  testing  less  than  90  degrees 
and  not  less  than  80  degrees  should  receive  one  and  three- 
fourths  cents  a  pound.  In  this  form  the  bill  passed  both 
houses  and  became  a  law. 

The  sugar  bounty  provision  of  the  tariff  act  of  1890  was 
an  entirely  new  feature  in  our  tariff  legislation.  We  know 
of  but  one  precedent  for  the  payment  of  a  bounty  by  the 
General  Government  for  the  promotion  of  any  productive 
American  industry.  In  the  country's  early  history  and  un- 
til about  the  middle  of  the  present  century  bounties  were 
paid  to  promote  our  fishery  industry,  but  they  also  promoted 
the  building  up  of  an  American  merchant  marine  and  the 
training  of  sailors  for  the  American  navy,  which  were  doubt- 
less the  principal  objects  the  bounties  were  expected  to  ac- 
complish. The  American  Cyclopcedia  says :  "  During  the  war 
with  England  in  1812-15  the  British  cruisers  kept  the  fish- 
ermen from  the  distant  fishing  grounds.  Many  of  them  en- 
tered the  navy,  and  the  frigate  Constitution  was  chiefly  man- 
ned by  them,  while  great  numbers  engaged  in  privateering. " 

There  is  no  mention  of  reciprocity  in  any  of  the  plat- 
forms of  the  Republican  party  prior  to  the  Presidential  cam- 
paign of  1892,  when  the  Minneapolis  Convention  of  that 
year  indorsed  "  the  Republican  policy  of  reciprocity  "  which 


HISTORY  OF  RECIPROCITY  LEGISLATION.         197 

had  been  incorporated  in  the  tariff  act  of  1890,  but  it  did 
not  mention  the  free  sugar  and  sugar  bounty  policy  which 
had  been  incorporated  in  the  same  tariff  and  which  was  the 
cause  of  the  insertion  in  that  tariff  of  the  reciprocity  policy, 
nor  has  a  sugar  bounty  or  any  other  bounty  for  the  benefit 
of  any  of  our  productive  industries  ever  been  approved  by  a 
Republican  National  Convention.  The  reciprocity  and  sugar 
bounty  legislation  embodied  in  the  tariff  act  of  1890  was, 
therefore,  not  only  legislation  which  had  not  previously  been 
recommended  by  a  Republican  National  Convention,  but  the 
sugar  bounty  feature  of  that  legislation  has  not  since  been 
approved  by  the  same^authority.  It  was  not  approved  in 
the  Minneapolis  platform  of  1892  nor  in  the  St.  Louis  plat- 
form of  1896,  and  it  finds  no  place  in  the  Dingley  tariff  of 
1897.  The  St.  Louis  platform  approved  of  reciprocity.  Here 
is  an  anomaly.  Reciprocity  and  a  sugar  bounty,  the  latter 
a  consequence  of  free  sugar,  were  inseparable  features  of  the 
tariff  legislation  of  1890,  and  yet  one  has  been  approved 
and  the  other  has  not  been  approved. 

This  country  had  experimented  with  the  policy  of  reci- 
procity in  two  instances  before  the  passage  of  the  tariff  act 
of  1890 — a  reciprocity  treaty  with  Canada  having  been  con- 
cluded in  1854  and  continuing  in  force  until  1866,  and  a  reci- 
procity treaty  with  Hawaii  having  been  concluded  in  1875 
and  being  still  in  force.  Our  experience  with  Canadian  reci- 
procity was  not  satisfactory  to  this  country,  and  the  reci- 
procity treaty  with  Canada  was  abrogated  at  the  instance  of 
our  Government.  The  reciprocity  treaty  with  Hawaii  was 
entered  into  for  other  than  commercial  considerations. 

The  reciprocity  features  of  the  tariff  of  1890  not  only 
applied  to  sugar  but  also  to  molasses,  coffee,  tea,  and  hides, 


198 


NOTES  AND   COMMENTS. 


but  their  principal  application,  and  their  only  important  ap- 
plication, was  to  sugar.  A  number  of  reciprocity  treaties 
were  negotiated  by  President  Harrison  with  sugar-producing 
countries,  as  well  as  with  other  countries.  These  treaties 
were  abrogated  by  the  Wilson  tariff  of  1894,  a  Democratic 
measure.  While  they  were  in  force  the  country  lost  in  a 
period  of  great  financial  depression  about  $200,000,000  in 
revenue.  The  following  table  shows  the  receipts  of  the 
Treasury  from  duties  on  sugar  in  the  three  fiscal  years  im- 
mediately preceding  the  enactment  of  the  tariff  act  of  1890 
and  in  the  three  full  fiscal  years  succeeding  its  enactment. 


Fiscal  years. 

Duties  paid. 

Fiscal  years. 

Duties  paid. 

1888 

$50  647  014  17 

1892 

$76  795  14 

1889 

54  896  437.38 

1893  

163  956  25 

1890 

53  985  873.85 

1894  -  ..- 

250  763  53 

It  is  fair  to  assume  that  the  total  loss  of  revenue  to  the 
Treasury  from  sugar  during  the  almost  four  years  in  which 
the  tariff  act  of  1890  was  in  force  exceeded  $200,000,000 
and  averaged  above  $50,000,000  annually,  in  which  figures 
we  include  the  payments  on  account  of  sugar  bounties  in 
the  fiscal  years  1892, 1893,  and  1894  and  the  fraction  of  the 
fiscal  year  1895  extending  from  July  1  to  August  28,  1894. 
These  payments  were  as  follows :  1892,  $7,342,077.79 ;  1893, 
$9,375,130.88;  1894,  $12,100,208.89;  1895,  $966,185.84: 
total,  $29,783,603.40. 

Wise  as  was  the  tariff  act  of  1890  in  nearly  every  par- 
ticular we  have  always  contended  that  it  was  most  unwise 
in  abandoning  the  sugar  duties  embodied  in  previous  tariff 
legislation,  and  which  had  been  a  source  of  large  revenue 
to  the  Treasury,  and  providing  for  the  payment  of  a  sugar 


HISTORY  OF  RECIPROCITY  LEGISLATION. 


199 


bounty  in  lieu  of  the  protection  they  had  afforded  to  our 
sugar  industry.  Having  passed  the  House  these  provisions 
concerning  free  sugar  and  a  sugar  bounty  paved  the  way 
for  the  reciprocity  amendment  in  the  Senate ;  indeed  they 
were  the  direct  cause  of  it.  Reciprocity  treaties  would  not 
have  been  thought  of  in  1890  by  Mr.  Elaine  and  others  if 
sugar  had  not  been  made  free  in  the  House  bill. 

The  course  of  our  export  trade  in  iron  and  steel  and 
manufactures  of  iron  and  steel  in  recent  years,  to  which  we 
will  be  excused  for  making  special  reference,  does  not  indi- 
cate that  this  branch  of  our  export  trade  was  at  all  benefit- 
ed under  the  late  reciprocity  treaties.  The  subjoined  table 
gives  the  value  of  our  exports  of  iron  and  steel  and  of  man- 
ufactures of  iron  and  steel  in  the  calendar  years  from  1887 
to  1896,  inclusive,  not  including  agricultural  implements. 


Years. 

Exports. 

Years. 

Exports. 

1887  

$16  235  922 

1892  

$27  900  862 

1888  

19  578  489 

1893   .  - 

30  159  363 

1889 

23  712  814 

1894 

29  943  729 

1890 

27  000  134 

1895 

35  071  563 

1891 

30  736  507 

1896 

48  670  218 

From  this  table  it  will  be  seen  that  our  exports  of  the 
articles  mentioned  increased  over  66  per  cent,  in  the  four 
years  from  1887  to  1890  without  reciprocity ;  that  in  the 
four  years  from  1891  to  1894  there  was  an  actual  decrease 
under  reciprocity ;  and  that  in  1895  and  1896  there  was  a 
large  increase  over  1894  without  reciprocity. 

The  Dingley  tariff  act  of  1897  provides  for  two  classes  of 
reciprocity  treaties  which  may  be  negotiated  by  the  Presi- 
dent. In  the  first  class  (section  3)  may  be  included  bran- 


200  NOTES  AND   COMMENTS. 

dies,  champagne  and  other  wines,  paintings  and  statuary, 
"  argols,  or  crude  tartar,  or  wine  lees,  crude,"  upon  which 
the  duties  imposed  by  the  Dingley  tariff  may  be  reduced  to 
certain  specified  rates ;  also  coffee,  tea,  and  "  tonquin,  tonqua, 
or  tonka  beans,  and  vanilla  beans,"  now  in  the  free  list  of 
the  Dingley  tariff,  upon  which  certain  specified  duties  may 
be  imposed  if  the  countries  producing  these  articles  shall 
impose  "  unequal  and  unreasonable "  duties  on  the  products 
of  the  United  States.  The  President  alone  is  empowered  to 
enter  into  reciprocal  treaties  with  the  countries  producing 
these  articles.  No  limit  of  time  is  placed  upon  the  negotia- 
tion or  continuance  of  treaties  in  this  class.  In  the  second 
class  (section  4)  may  be  included  every  article  of  foreign 
origin,  other  than  those  articles  above  mentioned,  which  is 
subject  to  duty  in  the  Dingley  tariff,  upon  which  the  duty 
may  be  reduced  not  more  than  20  per  cent.,  except  that 
there  may  be  transferred  wholly  from  the  dutiable  list  to 
the  free  list  such  goods,  wares,  and  merchandise  as  are  the 
"  natural  products  of  foreign  countries  and  not  of  the  Unit- 
ed States."  All  such  treaties  are  to  be  "duly  ratified  by 
the  Senate  and  approved  by  Congress,"  and  are  to  be  enter- 
ed into  within  two  years  from  the  passage  of  the  Dingley 
tariff  and  to  be  for  fixed  periods  not  exceeding  five  years. 

If  any  reciprocity  treaties  should  be  negotiated  by  the 
present  Administration  under  the  Dingley  tariff  they  would 
hardly  apply  to  sugar,  which  is  again  in  the  dutiable  list, 
and  from  which  source  we  are  certain  to  continue  to  need 
a  large  revenue.  Under  the  McKinley  tariff  the  consent  of 
the  Senate  to  reciprocity  treaties  was  not  required,  and  under 
section  3  of  the  Dingley  tariff  it  is  not  now  required,  but 
it  will  be  noticed  that  the  consent  of  the  Senate  and  the  ap- 


HISTORY  OF  RECIPROCITY  LEGISLATION.         201 

proval  of  the  House  of  Representatives  (Congress)  must  first 
be  obtained  before  any  reciprocity  treaties  under  section  4 
of  the  Dingley  tariff  can  go  into  effect. 

The  fatal  error  that  is  embodied  in  the  reciprocity  policy 
is  its  abandonment  of  the  policy  adopted  by  the  fathers  of 
the  Republic  of  imposing  duties  at  the  custom-house  that 
should  be  uniform  in  their  application  to  the  products  of  all 
countries.  In  lieu  of  this  policy,  which  was  established  in 
our  first  tariff  act,  and  which  had  been  sanctified  by  one 
hundred  years  of  successful  trial,  there  was  substituted  in 
1890  the  British  policy  of  variable  commercial  treaties,  other- 
wise called  reciprocity,  aad  this  was  done  not  to  protect  and 
preserve  the  home  market  for  home  producers,  which  is  the 
very  essence  of  the  protective  policy  of  the  fathers,  but  that 
foreign  markets  of  less  value  than  the  trade  of  one  of  our 
great  States  might  possibly  be  captured.  How  we  lost  our 
own  markets  and  otherwise  lost  money  by  our  reciprocity 
treaty  with  Canada  while  it  was  in  force  from  1854  to  1866 
is  told  in  the  following  extract  from  a  speech  in  the  Senate 
by  Senator  Morrill,  of  Vermont,  on  July  30,  1890. 

"  Our  exports  to  Canada  in  1855  were  $20,828,676,  but 
under  the  operation  of  reciprocity  then  commenced  they 
dwindled  in  twelve  years  down  to  $15,243,834,  while  the 
exports  of  Canada  to  the  United  States  increased  from 
$12,182,314  to  $46,199,470.  When  the  treaty  began  the 
balance  of  trade  had  been  $8,000,000  annually  in  our  fa- 
vor, and  that  paid  in  specie,  but  at  the  end  the  balance 
against  us  to  be  paid  in  specie  in  a  single  year  was  $30,- 
000,000.  Here  was  a  yearly  positive  loss  of  over  five  mill- 
ions of  our  export  trade  and  a  loss  of  thirty-eight  millions 
of  specie,  all  going  to  enrich  the  Canadas  at  our  expense." 


CHAPTER  XXVII. 

HOW   SCHUYLER   COLFAX    ROSE   TO   BE   VICE    PRESIDENT. 

THE  House  of  Representatives  of  the  Congress  of  the 
United  States  has  had  two  Speakers  who  were  newspaper 
editors  by  profession,  Schuyler  Colfax,  of  Indiana,  from  1863 
to  1869,  and  James  G.  Elaine,  of  Maine,  from  1869  to  1875. 
For  twelve  years  the  popular  branch  of  Congress  was  pre- 
sided over  continuously  by  these  two  editors.  Concerning 
the  first  of  these  an  interesting  story  has  been  told. 

On  Saturday  evening,  December  19,  1863,  a  company  of 
gentlemen,  composed  exclusively  of  journalists  and  newspa- 
per men,  and  representing  all  the  political  parties  of  the  day, 
met  Mr.  Colfax  at  dinner  at  Willard's  Hotel,  in  Washing- 
ton. Mr.  Colfax  was  present  by  invitation  of  his  profession- 
al brethren,  who  desired  in  this  formal  way  to  do  honor  to 
him  as  a  distinguished  member  of  the  American  "fourth  es- 
tate." The  immediate  occasion  of  the  compliment  was  the 
elevation  of  Mr.  Colfax  two  weeks  previously  to  the  Speak- 
ership  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  the  first  instance  in 
the  history  of  the  Government  of  an  editor  having  been  se- 
lected to  fill  that  responsible  position.  After  the  cloth  was 
removed  the  president  of  the  evening,  Samuel  "Wilkeson, 
then  the  "Washington  correspondent  of  the  New  York  Trib- 
une and  a  veteran  in  the  profession,  delivered  an  eloquent 
and  appropriate  address,  the  concluding  portion  of  which,  for 
the  sake  of  the  craft  so  creditably  represented  in  Mr.  Colfax, 
and  for  the  sake  of  its  lesson  to  young  men,  we  reproduce. 


SCHUYLER  COLFAX.  203 

"  Eighteen  years  ago,  at  one  o'clock  of  a  winter  moon- 
lighted morning,  while  the  horses  of  the  stage-coach  in 
which  I  was  plowing  the  thick  mud  of  Indiana  were  being 
changed  at  the  tavern  in  South  Bend,  I  walked  the  foot- 
way of  the  principal  street  to  shake  off  a  great  weariness. 
I  saw  a  light  through  a  window.  A  sign,  The  Register,  was 
legible  above  it,  and  I  saw  through  the  window  a  man  in 
his  shirt  sleeves  walking  quickly  about  like  one  that  work- 
ed. I  paused,  and  looked,  and  imagined  about  the  man, 
and  about  his  work,  and  about  the  lateness  of  the  hour  to 
which  it  was  protracted,  and  I  wondered  if  he  was  in  debt 
and  was  struggling  to  get'  out,  and  if  his  wife  was  expecting 
him  and  had  lighted  a  new  candle  for  his  coming,  and  if  he 
was  very  tired.  A  coming  step  interrupted  this  idle  dream- 
ing. When  the  walker  reached  my  side  I  joined  him,  and 
as  we  went  I  asked  him  questions,  and  naturally  they  were 
about  the  workman  in  his  shirt  sleeves.  'What  sort  of  a 
man  is  he  ? '  '  He  is  very  good  to  the  poor ;  he  works  hard  ; 
he  is  sociable  with  all  people ;  he  pays  his  debts ;  he  is  a 
safe  adviser  ;  he  doesn't  drink  whisky ;  folks  depend  on  him ; 
all  this  part  of  Indiana  believes  in  him.'  From  that  day 
to  this  I  have  never  taken  up  the  South  Bend  Register 
without  thinking  of  this  eulogy  and  envying  the  man  who 
had  justly  entitled  himself  to  it  in  the  dawn  of  his  man- 
hood. That  man  when  25  years  of  age,  and  again  when  29 
years  old,  was  sent  by  his  neighbors  to  the  National  Presi- 
dential Convention ;  when  27  years  old  was  sent  by  his 
neighbors  as  a  wise  political  reformer  to  the  Constitutional 
Convention  of  the  State  of  Indiana ;  was  sent  by  the  same 
neighbors  to  Congress  in  the  year  1854,  and  kept  there  by 
them  from  that  day  to  this.  On  the  first  Monday  of  this 


204  NOTES  AND  COMMENTS. 

month  of  December  the  Republicans  of  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives unanimously  elected  him  Speaker  of  that  body." 

If  Mr.  Wilkeson  had  been  gifted  with  a  prophet's  vision 
he  would  have  seen  in  the  near  future  the  South  Bend  edi- 
tor occupying  a  seat  of  still  higher  honor,  the  chair  of  the 
Vice  President  of  the  United  States.  But  the  verdict  of  the 
American  people  in  1868  had  not  then  been  revealed.  Mr. 
Wilkeson  concluded  his  address  by  attributing  the  success 
of  Mr.  Colfax  largely  to  his  kindness  of  heart  and  his  broad 
philanthropy,  first,  however,  paying  a  tribute  to  his  fidelity 
to  principle,  his  thorough  attention  to  business,  his  talent  for 
legislation,  and  the  devotion  of  his  gifts  to  the  public  good. 

Eloquent  and  generous  as  was  this  eulogy  there  remains 
a  very  important  element  in  the  success  of  Schuyler  Colfax 
which  his  graceful  eulogist  seems  not  to  have  observed.  We 
allude  to  it  more  for  the  sake  of  its  example  to  young  men 
— its  new  reading  of  old  proverbs — than  from  any  desire  to 
improve  upon  Mr.  Wilkeson's  words.  Schuyler  Colfax  when 
a  mere  boy  left  his  childhood's  home  in  New  York  and  went 
with  his  mother's  family  to  the  West.  He  found  work  and 
friends  in  South  Bend,  then  a  small  town  in  the  State  of 
Indiana.  He  found  also  that  there  was  room  there  for  him 
to  grow  and  become  a  useful  citizen,  and  he  resolved  to  make 
South  Bend  his  future  home.  He  became  an  editor.  And 
South  Bend  continued  to  be  his  home  until  the  day  of  his 
death.  He  did  not  remain  there  a  year  or  two  years  and 
then  become  discouraged,  abandon  his  office,  and  seek  a  new 
location,  to  be  in  turn  abandoned  for  another  and  another. 
Not  at  all.  He  stayed  in  South  Bend;  he  stuck  to  his  busi- 
ness;  and  South  Bend  sent  him  to  Congress  over  and  over 
again.  Its  devotion  to  him  made  him  Vice  President  when 


SCHUYLER  COLFAX.  205 

Grant  was  President.  As  editor,  Congressman,  Speaker  of 
the  House,  and  Vice  President  it  could  truthfully  be  said 
that  "folks  depend  on  him."  The  whole  nation  trusted  him. 

There  is  no  room  for  doubt  that  the  success  of  this  man 
whose  name  was  long  a  household  word  in  this  country  was 
due  most  of  all  to  that  trait  in  his  character  which  led  him 
to  "  settle  down  "  for  life  in  the  community  which  had  gen- 
erously opened  its  arms  to  receive  him  and  which  held  out  to 
him  the  promise  of  a  livelihood  and  of  honors  in  accordance 
with  his  merits.  It  was  a  poetic  and  kindly  thought  in  Mr. 
Wilkeson  to  ascribe  the  success  of  Schuyler  Colfax  largely 
to  his  broad  philanthropy,  but  the  philanthropist  is  not  al- 
ways rewarded  in  this  world.  Benevolence  alone  will  not 
send  any  man  to  Congress.  Schuyler  Colfax  succeeded  be- 
cause he  joined  to  his  generous  character  and  his  many  tal- 
ents the  twin  virtues  of  persistence  in  a  chosen  occupation 
and  contentment  with  his  lot. 

The  life  of  Schuyler  Colfax  teaches  above  all  else  this 
lesson  to  young  men,  the  lesson  of  all  human  experience,  that 
to  be  successful  they  must  stick  to  one  pursuit  and  stay  in 
one  place.  If  the  life  of  any  other  successful  man  seems 
to  teach  a  different  lesson  it  should  be  remembered  that  ex- 
traordinary mental  power  and  unusually  favorable  opportu- 
nities, which  seldom  fail  to  bring  success  anywhere,  even 
when  not  combined,  are  themselves  exceptions  to  a  general 
rule.  Schuyler  Colfax  was  not  a  great  man ;  he  was  a  man 
of  more  industry  than  genius ;  nor  were  his  early  opportu- 
nities especially  favorable ;  but  he  was  one  of  the  most  suc- 
cessful public  men  in  the  history  of  his  country,  and  he  suc- 
ceeded because  he  stayed  in  South  Bend  and  stuck  to  his 
printing  office. 


CHAPTER  XXVIII. 

BUCKEYES   IN   AMERICAN   HISTORY. 

OHIO,  the  first  of  the  States  north  of  the  Ohio  river  to 
be  admitted  into  the  Union,  has  furnished  the  country  with 
a  greater  number  of  distinguished  military  leaders  and  civil- 
ians than  any  other  State,  Virginia  alone  excepted,  and  even 
the  Old  Dominion's  race  of  great  men  belongs  almost  entire- 
ly to  the  Revolutionary  period  and  to  the  period  of  the  Re- 
bellion. George  H.  Thomas,  Joseph  E.  Johnston,  Robert  E. 
Lee,  and  Thomas  J.  Jackson,  all  heroes  of  the  Rebellion 
period,  but  not  all  on  the  same  side,  were  Virginians,  and 
they  were  all  great  men.  William  Henry  Harrison,  Will- 
iam Wirt,  Zachary  Taylor,  Winfield  Scott,  and  Henry  Clay 
form  the  only  conspicuous  links  between  Virginia's  great  men 
of  the  Revolutionary  period  and  her  great  men  of  the  Re- 
bellion period.  But  William  Wirt  was  born  in  Maryland, 
while  Harrison  early  became  identified  with  the  development 
of  the  country  north  of  the  Ohio ;  Clay  lived  nearly  all  his 
days  in  Kentucky  ;  and  Taylor  and  Scott  practically  lost 
their  identity  with  their  native  State  after  they  entered  the 
army.  Since  the  surrender  at  Appomattox  no  son  of  Vir- 
ginia has  prominently  come  to  the  front  in  any  sphere  of 
human  activity,  military  or  civil.  Not  so,  however,  with 
Ohio.  She  began  to  produce  great  men,  or  at  least  distin- 
guished men,  as  soon  as  she  became  a  State  in  1§03,  and  she 
has  not  relaxed  her  efforts  in  this  direction  to  the  present 
time. 


BUCKEYES  IN  AMERICAN  HISTORY.  207 

Of  the  twenty-five  Presidents  of  the  United  States  four 
have  come  from  Ohio — William  Henry  Harrison,  Hayes,  Gar- 
field,  and  McKinley,  while  two  others,  Grant  and  Benjamin 
Harrison,  were  natives  of  Ohio.  The  present  Secretary  of 
State,  John  Sherman,  is  a  native  of  Ohio  and  was  appointed 
from  that  State.  Of  the  Secretaries  of  the  Treasury  five 
have  come  from  Ohio — Ewing,  Corwin,  Chase,  Sherman,  and 
Foster,  while  Windom  was  a  native  of  Ohio.  Of  the  Secreta- 
ries of  War  Cass,  although  born  in  New  Hampshire,  was  ap- 
pointed from  Ohio  by  Jackson  and  was  subsequently  Buch- 
anan's Secretary  of  State,  while  Stanton,  the  greatest  of  our 
war  ministers,  was  Ohio,  born,  as  is  also  General  Alger,  the 
present  Secretary  of  War.  Of  the  Postmaster  Generals  three 
have  come  from  Ohio — Meigs,  McLean,  and  Dennison.  Of 
the  Attorney  Generals  four  have  come  from  Ohio — Stanton, 
Stanberry,  Taft,  and  Harmon.  Of  the  Secretaries  of  the 
Interior,  which  department  was  not  organized  until  1849, 
three  have  come  from  Ohio — Ewing,  Cox,  and  Delano,  while 
Noble  was  born  in  Ohio.  The  first  Secretary  of  Agriculture, 
Rusk,  was  born  in  Ohio.  There  have  been  only  eight  Chief 
Justices  of  the  Supreme  Court,  and  two  of  these,  Chase  and 
Waite,  have  come  from  Ohio,  although  natives  of  New 
England,  while  McLean  and  Swayne,  of  Ohio,  were  among 
the  most  noted  Justices  of  that  Court,  although  McLean  was 
born  in  New  Jersey  and  Swayne  in  Virginia.  Joseph  War- 
ren Keifer,  a  native  of  Ohio  and  a  Representative  in  Con- 
gress from  that  State,  was  the  Speaker  of  the  Forty-seventh 
Congress. 

This  list  of  prominent  civilians  contributed  to  the  country 
by  Ohio  may  be  further  extended  by  including  the  names 
of  Wade,  Giddings,  and  Thurman,  none  of  whom,  however, 


208  NOTES  AND   COMMENTS. 

were  born  in  Ohio.  Two  natives  of  Ohio,  Scheuck  and 
McKinley,  have  given  their  names  to  important  tariff  bills, 
each  having  been  chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Ways  and 
Means  of  the  House  of  Representatives.  Senator  Allison, 
of  Iowa,  and  Senator  Elkins,  of  West  Virginia,  were  born 
in  Ohio,  as  were  also  Thomas  A.  Edison,  the  noted  electri- 
cian, and  Matthew  Simpson,  the  eminent  Methodist  bishop. 

The  President  and  his  Cabinet  of  eight  ministers — nine  in 
all — are  usually  designated  as  "  The  Administration."  Of 
the  late  Harrison  Administration  (1889  to  1893)  four  of  its 
members  were  born  in  Ohio — the  President,  and  Secretaries 
Noble,  Rusk,  and  Foster,  the  last  named  taking  the  place  of 
Windom,  who  was  also  born  in  Ohio.  President  Cleveland 
found  one  of  his  Constitutional  advisers  in  Ohio,  Attorney 
General  Harmon.  President  McKinley  and  his  Secretary  of 
State  and  Secretary  of  War  are  natives  of  Ohio,  as  has  al- 
ready been  stated. 

The  prominence  of  Ohio  in  the  military  history  of  the 
country  has  been  even  more  marked  than  its  prominence  in 
our  civil  affairs.  William  Henry  Harrison  was  the  hero  of 
Tippecanoe  and  the  battle  of  the  Thames  long  before  he  be- 
came President.  Lewis  Cass  distinguished  himself  as  an  of- 
ficer in  the  second  war  with  Great  Britain  before  he  became 
noted  as  a  politician.  The  great  triumvirate  of  the  Union 
armies  during  the  civil  war — Grant,  Sherman,  and  Sheridan 
— must  all  be  credited  to  Ohio.  They  were  all  reared  with- 
in its  borders,  and  all  were  appointed  cadets  at  West  Point 
from  that  State,  while  two  of  the  three,  Grant  and  Sherman, 
were  Ohio  born.  Sheridan  was  born  at  Albany,  New  York. 
McPherson,  Custer,  Rosecrans,  McDowell,  several  of  the 
fighting  McCooks,  and  many  other  military  leaders  on  the 


BUCKEYES  IN  AMERICAN  HISTORY.  209 

loyal  side  in  the  war  for  the  Union  were  natives  of  Ohio. 
General  O.  M.  Mitchel,  the  eminent  astronomer,  who  also  at- 
tained distinction  as  a  soldier  during  the  war  for  the  Union, 
was  a  resident  of  Ohio  from  childhood,  although  a  native  of 
Kentucky.  Hayes  made  a  creditable  record  as  a  soldier  be- 
fore he  became  prominent  as  a  politician,  while  Schenck  was 
as  prominent  as  a  military  man  as  he  was  as  a  civilian,  and 
Garfield  and  McKinley  were  also  soldiers. 

Although  a  Western  State,  far  removed  from  the  "  culti- 
vation" of  the  East,  Ohio  is  worthy  of  high  honor  as  the 
mother  of  many  prominent  literary  men  and  women.  Our 
eminent  American  novelist* "William  Dean  Howells,  is  a  na- 
tive of  Ohio,  and  so  is  Whitelaw  Reid,  one  of  the  most  not- 
ed of  American  journalists.  Reid  made  his  reputation  as  a 
war  correspondent,  writing  over  the  signature  of  "Agate." 
Murat  Halstead,  another  American  journalist  of  distinction, 
was  born  in  Ohio  and  established  his  reputation  while  resid- 
ing in  his  native  State.  Mrs.  Harriet  Beecher  Stowe  wrote 
Uncle  Tom's  Cabin  after  a  long  residence,  from  1832  to 
1850,  at  Cincinnati,  where  she  became  acquainted  with  the 
evils  of  negro  slavery.  The  Gary  sisters,  who  easily  rank 
first  among  the  female  poets  of  America,  were  natives  of 
Ohio.  Albion  W.  Tourgee,  author  of  A  Fool's  Errand,  is  a 
native  of  Ohio.  Colonel  William  H.  Lytle,  the  author  of 
that  notable  poem  which  begins  with  the  words,  "  I  am  dy- 
ing, Egypt,  dying,"  was  a  native  of  Ohio  and  a  resident  of 
that  State  all  his  days.  David  R.  Locke,  otherwise  known 
as  Petroleum  V.  Nasby,  made  his  reputation  as  a  humorist 
while  editing  the  Toledo  Blade,  and  Charles  F.  Browne,  an- 
other humorist  of  national  reputation,  wrote  his  first  letter 
over  the  signature  of  Artemus  Ward  while  he  was  engaged 


210  NOTES  AND   COMMENTS. 

as  a  reporter  on  an  Ohio  newspaper.  Neither  humorist  was, 
however,  a  native  of  Ohio.  Samuel  S.  Cox,  who  was  long 
a  prominent  Representative  in  Congress,  and  who  was  best 
known  by  his  sobriquet  of  "  Sunset,"  was  a  native  of  Ohio. 
He  was  a  prolific  writer  on  both  serious  and  humorous  sub- 
jects. 

The  people  of  Ohio  are  often  called  Buckeyes,  the  name 
being  given  to  them  from  the  abundance  of  buckeyes,  or 
horse  chestnuts,  among  its  native  trees.  One  of  the  dialect 
poets  of  the  day,  James  Whitcomb  Riley,  has  written  a 
"  poem  "  about  buckeyes,  meaning  the  trees  of  that  name 
and  the  nuts  produced  by  them.  He  asks  in  bad  grammar 
and  answers  the  question,  "  What  is  buckeyes  good  for  ? " 
If  he  had  asked  the  same  question  concerning  the  men  and 
women  of  Ohio  he  could  easily  have  found  an  answer  in  the 
history  of  the  country's  notable  achievements  in  war  and 
in  peace. 


CHAPTER    XXIX. 

OUR   NEARNESS   TO    REVOLUTIONARY   TIMES. 

ON  the  30th  day  of  April,  1789,  George  Washington 
was  inaugurated  at  New  York  as  the  first  President  of  the 
United  States.  From  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  in 
1776,  until  the  important  event  above  mentioned  the  thir- 
teen United  States  which  had  previously  been  thirteen  Brit- 
ish colonies  were  held"together  chiefly  by  ties  of  common 
danger  rather  than  by  ties  of  mutual  interest  in  peaceful 
pursuits.  The  political  bonds  that  united  them  were  of  the 
lightest  and  most  fragile  character.  But  little  respect  was 
paid  to  them  and  but  little  help  was  expected  from  them. 
Each  of  the  thirteen  States  was  practically  an  independent 
republic.  The  Articles  of  Confederation,  which  were  adopted 
in  1777,  had  failed  to  cement  the  rebellious  colonies  into  a 
compact  sovereignty.  Those  were  the  days  of  States'  rights. 
It  can  scarcely  be  said  that  in  those  days  we  were  a  nation. 
The  country  was  not  prosperous,  nor  was  it  in  the  way  of 
becoming  strong  and  powerful.  A  new  form  of  government 
became  a  necessity.  Our  present  Constitution  was  framed  in 
1787,  and  in  1789,  but  little  over  one  hundred  years  ago,  it 
became  fully  operative  with  Washington's  inauguration. 

To  those  of  us  who  have  lived  half  a  century  and  more 
it  does  not  seem  a  very  long  time  since  Revolutionary  days 
and  the  inauguration  of  Washington  as  our  first  President. 
A  few  persons  are  yet  living  who  were  born  before  he  died 
in  1799.  A  larger  number  of  persons  are  living  to-day  and 


212  NOTES  AND   COMMENTS. 

are  not  yet  very  old  men  who  have  seen  and  talked  with 
heroes  of  the  Revolution — with  men  who  had  fought  in  its 
battles  against  the  redcoats  of  George  the  Third.  "We  can 
ourselves  remember  frequently  seeing  one  of  these  heroes, 
Samuel  Cole.  The  captain  of  a  volunteer  military  company 
which  fired  a  salute  over  the  grave  of  the  old  soldi  sr  more 
than  fifty  years  ago  died  as  late  as  1894. 

Lafayette  was  the  close  friend  and  military  adviser  of 
Washington,  yet  many  of  our  old  friends  who  were  recently 
living  and  some  who  are  still  living  have  seen  and  talked 
with  this  liberty-loving  Frenchman  when  he  paid  a  visit  to 
our  country  in  1824  and  1825.  One  of  these  friends,  who 
died  in  1891,  told  us  that  he  played  the  drum  on  the  3d  day 
of  June,  1825,  upon  the  occasion  of  Lafayette's  reception 
by  the  people  of  the  town  of  Butler,  Pennsylvania,  and  that 
the  fifer  whom  he  accompanied  with  his  drum  was  a  Revo- 
lutionary soldier,  named  Peter  McKinney,  who  had  played  a 
fife  at  the  battle  of  Bunker  Hill,  in  1775,  just  fifty  years 
before.  Lafayette  was  born  in  1757  and  lived  until  1834. 

William  Henry  Harrison  knew  Washington  personally. 
He  was  twenty-six  years  old  when  the  Father  of  his  Country 
died,  and  yet  there  are  many  of  our  countrymen  still  living 
who  knew  the  hero  of  Tippecanoe  intimately,  while  thou- 
sands of  persons  are  living  who  voted  for  him  for  President 
in  1836  and  1840.  Washington  was  the  friend  of  Benjamin 
Harrison,  the  father  of  William  Henry  Harrison,  and  it  was 
with  the  assistance  of  Washington  that  the  young  man  en- 
tered the  army  as  an  ensign  in  1791. 

Robert  C.  Winthrop  was  born  in  1809  and  died  in  1894. 
He  was  Speaker  of  the  House  of  Representatives  from  1847 
to  1849.  In  1848  he  witnessed  the  death  of  John  Quincy 

J 


OUR  NEARNESS  TO  REVOLUTIONARY  TIMES.      213 

Adams,  sixth  President  of  the  United  States,  who  was  born 
in  1767.  Mr.  Adams  shared  as  a  boy  the  hopes  and  fears 
of  the  Revolutionary  struggle,  and  at  its  close  he  assisted 
his  father  as  secretary  in  drafting  in  1783  the  treaty  of 
peace  which  established  our  independence.  Mr.  Winthrop 
could  have  told  any  of  the  readers  of  this  paragraph  down 
to  the  year  of  his  own  death  what  Mr.  Adams  had  told  him 
of  his  personal  recollections  of  the  Revolution  and  of  Rev- 
olutionary leaders.  Andrew  Jackson,  who  died  in  1845,  and 
who  received  the  votes  of  persons  who  are  yet  living  when 
he  was  a  Presidential  candidate  in  1824  and  1828,  and  of  a 
larger  number  when  ite  was  a  candidate  hi  1832,  was  born 
in  1767,  the  same  year  in  which  Mr.  Adams  was  born.  He 
must  have  communicated  to  many  of  our  cotemporaries  his 
boyish  recollections  of  the  times  that  tried  men's  souls. 

But  Mr.  Winthrop  had  talked  with  even  older  men  than 
John  Quincy  Adams.  In  1832,  when  returning  from  a  visit 
to  James  Madison,  he  saw  at  his  own  house  in  Baltimore 
Charles  Carroll,  of  Carrollton,  the  last  surviving  signer  of 
the  Declaration  of  Independence,  who  was  born  hi  1737  and 
died  in  1832 ;  and  in  1837  he  visited  at  Stratham,  New 
Hampshire,  Paine  Wingate,  the  last  surviving  member  of  the 
first  Senate  of  the  United  States,  then  in  his  99th  year,  who 
was  born  in  1739  and  who  had  dined  with  Washington  in 
1789  on  the  day  of  his  first  inauguration.  He  died  in  1838. 

Justin  S.  Morrill,  who  has  long  honored  and  still  honors 
the  State  of  Vermont  as  one  of  its  representatives  in  the 
United  States  Senate,  tells  us  that  when  he  was  eight  years 
old  he  saw  President  James  Monroe  at  Strafford,  Vermont, 
in  1818.  James  Monroe  was  born  in  1758  and  was  a  soldier 
in  the  Revolution.  Mr.  Morrill  also  tells  us  that  on  the  4th 


214  NOTES  AND  COMMENTS. 

day  of  July,  1831,  he  called  on  John  Quincy  Adams  at  his 
home  in  Quincy,  Massachusetts,  and  that  on  the  same  day 
he  heard  him  deliver  an  oration,  appropriate  to  the  day,  at  a 
church  in  Quincy.  Mr.  Morrill  afterwards  saw  Mr.  Adams 
at  Washington  when  the  ex-President  was  a  member  of  the 
House  of  Representatives.  Elijah  Paine,  who  was  born  in 
1757,  was  a  United  States  Senator  from  Vermont  from  1795 
to  1801,  taking  his  seat  when  Washington  was  still  Presi- 
dent, over  a  hundred  years  ago,  and  from  1801  to  1842  he 
was  Judge  of  the  United  States  District  Court  of  Vermont, 
dying  in  the  latter  year.  Mr.  Morrill  often  saw  Judge 
Paine,  who  was  always  dressed  in  the  old  Continental  style. 
He  always  called  himself  one  of  John  Adams's  "midnight 
judges,"  having  been  appointed  by  Adams  on  the  last  day 
of  his  Presidential  term.  It  seems  to  us  to  be  a  most  in- 
teresting fact  that  a  member  of  the  present  Senate  of  the 
United  States  should  have  seen  and  talked  with  a  gentle- 
man who  was  a  United  States  Senator  when  Washington 
was  President. 

Henry  C.  Carey  is  well  known  to  this  generation  as  our 
greatest  political  economist.  He  was  born  in  Philadelphia 
in  1793  and  died  in  1879,  in  his  86th  year.  We  knew  him 
well  and  never  saw  a  handsomer  old  man.  In  his  later 
years  he  was  a  frequent  visitor  to  our  office  in  Philadelphia. 
He  was  six  years  old  when  Washington  died.  When  a 
young  man  he  had  seen  and  talked  with  many  of  the  Rev- 
olutionary heroes.  Deborah  Fisher  Wharton,  a  prominent 
member  of  the  Society  of  Friends,  who  was  born  in  Phila- 
delphia in  1795  and  who  died  in  1888,  remembered  seeing 
Washington  when  she  was  a  child  and  he  was  pointed  out  to 
her  on  the  street.  Mrs.  Wharton  was  the  mother  of  Joseph 


OUR  NEARNESS  TO  REVOLUTIONARY  TIMES.      215 

Wharton.  On  the  same  square  on  which  our  office  is  located 
lived  Horace  Binney  for  many  years  prior  to  his  death  in 
1875,  at  the  age  of  95  years.  He  was  born  in  Philadelphia 
in  1780,  before  the  struggle  with  Great  Britain  had  ended. 
We  also  knew  this  venerable  man.  He  was  nineteen  years 
old  when  Washington  died,  and,  living  in  Philadelphia  all 
his  days,  he  must  have  seen  him  frequently  when  he  was 
President,  as  well  as  many  other  heroes  of  the  Revolution- 
ary period,  Franklin  included,  who  died  in  1790. 

The  venerable  Frederick  Fraley,  of  Philadelphia,  who  is 
now  (1897)  in  his  94th  year,  having  been  born  in  Philadel- 
phia in  May,  1804,  tefls  us  that  his  father,  John  U.  Fraley, 
who  was  born  in  1776,  frequently  saw  Washington.  Point- 
ing to  a  portrait  of  Washington  one  day  he  told  his  son 
"  Fred "  that  Washington  looked  like  that  portrait.  Mr. 
Fraley's  recollection  is  that  the  portrait  very  closely  resem- 
bled Stuart's  celebrated  painting.  Mr.  Fraley  also  tells  us 
that  in  1817,  precisely  eighty  years  ago,  when  he  was  him- 
self thirteen  years  old,  he  was  present  at  the  laying  of  the 
corner-stone  of  the  Bridesburg  Arsenal,  in  Philadelphia, 
when  President  James  Monroe,  at  whose  side  he  was  stand- 
ing, asked  him  to  give  the  stone  three  taps  with  a  wooden 
mallet,  which  he  did,  the  President  himself  having  just  per- 
formed the  same  act  as  a  part  of  the  corner-stone  ceremo- 
nial. Mr.  Fraley  has  seen  every  President  since  Monroe. 
He  also  saw  Lafayette  in  1824,  and  a  few  years  later  he  es- 
corted Chief  Justice  John  Marshall  through  the  fair  of  the 
Franklin  Institute  of  Philadelphia.  Marshall  was  born  in 
1755  and  died  in  1835.  Mr.  Fraley  was  a  delegate  to  the 
National  Whig  Convention  at  Harrisburg  in  1839  which 
nominated  William  Henry  Harriso*  for  the  Presidency. 


216  NOTES  AND  COMMENTS. 

Richard  W.  Thompson,  of  Terre  Haute,  who  was  born  in 
1809  and  is  now  in  his  89th  year,  has  recently  published 
his  personal  recollections,  in  which  he  states  that  he  has  seen 
all  the  Presidents  except  Washington  and  John  Adams.  He 
describes  minutely  the  personal  appearance  of  Jefferson,  who 
was  born  in  1743,  and  of  Madison,  who  was  born  in  1749. 

At  the  end  of  a  little  over  a  hundred  years  we  are  not, 
therefore,  very  far  removed  from  Washington's  inauguration 
or  from  the  days  of  the  Revolution  itself.  It  is  not  yet  a 
hundred  years  since  Washington  died.  Viewed  through  the 
memories  which  connect  us  with  Revolutionary  days  this  is 
still  a  new  country  and  we  are  still  a  new  people.  It  is  on- 
ly when  we  turn  to  the  events  and  the  traditions  of  "  good 
old  colony  times,"  and  particularly  before  the  days  "  when 
George  the  Third  was  King,"  his  accession  to  the  throne 
taking  place  in  1760,  that  we  begin  to  realize  how  widely 
we  are  separated  from  the  pioneers  whose  thin  and  scattered 
settlements  along  the  Atlantic  coast  were  the  first  steps  that 
were  taken  in  making  us  a  nation. 

And  yet  it  is  possible  even  now  to  be  brought  into  close 
touch  with  colonial  times.  Mr.  Elaine  once  told  us  that 
when  he  was  a  boy  he  knew  an  old  man  who  told  him  that 
when  himself  a  boy  he  had  known  an  old  man  who  had 
witnessed  the  coronation  of  Queen  Anne  in  1702,  nearly  two 
hundred  years  ago.  Benjamin  Franklin  was  born  four  years 
later,  in  1706,  and  lived  until  1790.  The  old  men  who  are 
still  living  and  have  talked  with  Washington's  compatriots 
may  have  received  from  them  their  personal  recollections  of 
Franklin.  Charles  Carroll  and  Paine  Wingate  must  have 
communicated  to  men  who  are  still  living  their  recollections 
of  the  days  long  before,  the  Revolution. 


OUR  NEARNESS  TO  REVOLUTIONARY  TIMES.      217 

In  closing  this  retrospect  of  colonial  and  Revolutionary 
times  we  wish  to  emphasize  the  full  significance  of  the  facts 
we  have  stated  concerning  some  of  our  fellow  citizens  who 
are  still  living.  Frederick  Fraley  can  describe  the  personal 
appearance  of  John  Marshall,  who  was  born  in  1755,  of 
Lafayette,  who  was  born  in  1757,  and  of  Monroe,  who  was 
born  in  1758,  and  Senator  Morrill  can  also  describe  the  per- 
sonal appearance  of  Monroe  and  of  Judge  Paine,  the  latter 
having  been  born  in  1757.  It  is  a  long  way  back  to  the 
sixth  decade  of  the  eighteenth  century,  a  hundred  and  forty 
years  ago.  Still  more  remarkable  are  the  reminiscences  of 
Mr.  Thompson,  who  describes  for  us  the  personal  appearance 
of  Jefferson  and  Madison,  who  were  born  in  the  fifth  decade 
of  the  eighteenth  century,  a  hundred  and  fifty  years  ago. 


CHAPTER  XXX. 

HONORING   THE   MIGHTY   DEAD. 

THE  address  of  the  Honorable  Edward  J.  Phelps,  at  the 
dedication  of  the  battle  monument  at  Bennington,  Vermont, 
on  August  19,  1891,  was  unquestionably  one  of  the  most 
perfect  of  its  kind  that  has  ever  been  delivered  before  an 
American  audience.  The  concluding  part  of  it,  which  em- 
bodies the  orator's  tribute  to  Vermont,  and  which  describes 
the  inspiring  lesson  of  patriotism  and  virtue  that  the  magnif- 
icent monument  will  teach  to  coming  generations,  is  worthy 
of  preservation  as  an  American  classic  of  the  highest  order. 
In  this  masterly  address  our  late  Minister  to  England  has 
won  for  the  Green  Mountain  State  a  new  honor  which  she 
can  now  add  to  all  the  other  honors  that  have  been  heap- 
ed upon  her.  He  has  shown  that  she  possesses  a  great  ora- 
tor, who  has  fitly  and  gracefully  and  fervently  recorded  the 
great  deeds  of  her  mighty  dead. 

The  mighty  dead  of  all  the  States !  Is  there  a  nation  in 
the  world  that  honors  the  memory  of  its  great  men,  wheth- 
er statesmen  or  soldiers,  men  of  letters  or  men  of  action,  as 
this  young  nation  honors  those  who  have  placed  it  in  the 
front  of  all  the  nations  ?  From  the  death  of  Washington  in 
1799  to  the  death  of  Sherman  in  1891  how  general  has  been 
the  regret,  how  unstinted  has  been  the  praise,  when  a  great 
man  has  fallen  among  us  !  Especially  since  the  close  of  our 
civil  war,  more  than  a  quarter  of  a  century  ago,  have  we 
shown  a  veneration  for  the  illustrious  deeds  of  our  country- 


HONORING  THE  MIGHTY  DEAD.  219 

men  in  every  period  of  our  history  that  will  well  compare 
in  sincerity  and  intensity  with  the  honors  which  the  people 
of  other  countries,  ancient  and  modern,  have  paid  to  the 
memory  of  their  heroes  and  sages.  The  centennial  anniver- 
saries of  Revolutionary  events,  uniting  with  the  growing  ap- 
preciation of  the  heroic  achievements  of  the  civil  war,  have 
deepened  in  the  breast  of  every  loyal  American  the  feeling 
of  respect  and  gratitude  which  we  instinctively  cherish  for 
those  who  have  well  served  their  country  in  field  or  forum, 
or  conspicuously  advanced  in  any  way  its  prosperity  and 
glory.  The  battle  monument  at  Bennington  is  the  last  of 
the  Revolutionary  memorials  that  the  gratitude  of  a  great 
people  has  erected.  It  will  be  followed  by  others  commem- 
orating great  events  and  honoring  great  actors  in  peace  and 
in  war  in  every  period  of  our  eventful  history,  until  the  land 
will  be  dotted  with  statues  and  the  heavens  in  every  part  of 
the  horizon  will  be  pierced  with  shafts  of  granite  and  mar- 
ble. Our  great  wealth  will  make  possible  in  a  short  time 
that  which  other  countries  have  been  ages  in  accomplishing. 
But  we  honor  our  mighty  dead  and  teach  the  lesson  of 
their  useful  lives  in  other  Ways  than  with  statues  and  mon- 
uments. Our  observance  of  the  4th  of  July,  the  22d  of 
February,  and  the  8th  of  January  shows  our  grateful  re- 
membrance of  the  men  who  participated  in  the  important 
events  of  the  early  days  of  the  Republic,  while  the  growing 
tendency  to  honor  the  birthdays  of  Lincoln  and  Grant  shows 
that  these  great  men  have  taken  their  place  with  Washing- 
ton and  his  compatriots  in  the  hearts  of  all  true  Americans. 
Memorial  Day  tells  of  our  gratitude  to  the  private  soldier 
of  the  civil  war,  and  our  long  pension  roll  tells  of  our 
care  for  himself  and  his  family.  The  bank  notes  issued 


220  NOTES  AND  COMMENTS. 

by  the  Government  are  stamped  with  the  lineaments  of 
many  among  our  dead  who  have  been  eminent  in  our  mili- 
tary and  civil  annals. 

The  formal  eulogy  by  set  speech  of  the  character  and 
services  of  a  great  citizen  who  has  departed  is  a  custom  of 
the  ancients  which  is  so  much  observed  in  our  country  that 
we  look  for  it  as  a  matter  of  course.  Rarely  is  this  custom 
neglected.  When  a  member  of  Congress  dies  it  is  always 
observed,  although  many  deceased  members  of  Congress  have 
been  in  no  way  distinguished.  When  Washington,  Jefferson, 
the  first  Adams,  William  Henry  Harrison,  Jackson,  Taylor, 
Clay,  and  Webster  died  formal  eulogies  were  pronounced  in 
many  places.  When  Lincoln  and  Garfield  and  Grant  died 
every  pulpit  in  the  land  expressed  the  sorrow  of  the  whole 
American  people.  In  memory  of  Lincoln  and  Garfield  the 
most  imposing  services  were  held  in  the  Hall  of  the  House 
of  Representatives  at  Washington.  We  never  could  under- 
stand why  similar  services  were  not  held  in  the  same  place 
when  Congress  met  after  the  death  of  Grant.  It  was  a  great 
blunder.  But  it  was  no  greater  than  that  of  President 
Cleveland,  who  did  not  even  refer  to  the  death  of  his  illus- 
trious predecessor  in  his  annual  message  to  Congress  after 
that  sad  event  had  shocked  a  grateful  country.  But  these 
are  exceptions  to  the  general  rule. 

Looking  over  some  notable  eulogies  which  are  in  our 
library,  published  by  authority  of  Congress,  we  are  impress- 
ed first  by  their  general  literary  excellence  and  next  by  the 
uniform  absence  of  all  partisan  feeling  in  their  preparation. 
We  have  before  us  Bancroft's  eulogy  of  Lincoln  and 
Elaine's  eulogy  of  Garfield,  each  eulogy  having  been  de- 
livered in  the  Hall  of  the  House  of  Representatives  at  the 


HONORING  THE  MIGHTY  DEAD.  221 

request  of  both  houses  of  Congress.  Here,  too,  are  the  Con- 
gressional eulogies  of  Thaddeus  Stevens,  John  Covode,  Dud- 
ley C.  Haskell,  William  D.  Kelley,  and  Samuel  J.  Randall 
— all  dying  in  Congressional  harness.  Worthier  tribunes  of 
the  people  than  these  members  of  the  House  this  country 
has  not  produced.  All  of  them  unselfishly  devoted  their 
great  talents  and  their  tireless  energies  to  their  country's 
welfare,  and  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  death  of  at 
least  one  of  these  great  men  was  hastened  by  that  devotion. 
This  country  is  rich  in  the  names  of  public  servants  who 
have  won  distinction  caring  for  its  interests  as  these  great 
men  did,  and  these  other  great  men  are  not  forgotten. 

Bancroft's  eulogy  of  Lincoln  and  Elaine's  eulogy  of  Gar- 
field  are  productions  of  unequal  merit.  Bancroft  had  the 
greater  subject  and  he  was  wholly  unequal  to  it.  Blame's 
eulogy  of  Garfield  is  a  masterpiece.  Bancroft's  address  is 
mainly  a  political  essay,  dealing  with  the  remote  causes  of 
the  war  for  the  Union  rather  than  with  the  war  itself,  and 
it  contains  a  most  meagre  and  unsatisfactory  analysis  of 
Lincoln's  great  character,  which  he  plainly  did  not  under- 
stand, as,  for  instance,  where  he  says  that  Lincoln  "  excelled 
in  logical  statement  more  than  in  executive  ability."  He  ex- 
celled in  both.  The  distinguished  orator  could  think  of  no 
more  felicitous  way  of  glorifying  Lincoln  than  by  favora- 
bly comparing  him  with  Lord  Palmerston,  the  British  Prime 
Minister,  who  had  just  died,  and  who  is  not  worthy  to  be 
mentioned  in  the  same  day  with  Lincoln.  The  address  is 
turgid  in  style,  and  it  is  sadly  marred  by  reference  to  the 
orator's  own  opinions  and  personal  griefs.  Horace  Greeley's 
more  recently  published  tribute  to  Lincoln  in  the  Century 
Magazine  far  excels  that  of  our  great  historian.  Bancroft's 


222  NOTES  AND   COMMENTS. 

closing  words,  which,  with  singular  inappropriateness,  did 
not  forget  himself,  were  tamely  as  follows : 

"  Senators  and  ^Representatives  of  America :  As  I  bid  you 
farewell  my  last  words  shall  be  words  of  hope  and  confi- 
dence ;  for  now  slavery  is  no  more,  the  Union  is  restored, 
a  people  begins  to  live  according  to  the  laws  of  reason,  and 
republicanism  is  intrenched  in  a  continent." 

Blame's  eulogy  of  Garfield  is  not  so  retrospective  and 
philosophic  as  that  of  Bancroft,  but  it  is  more  happily  con- 
ceived and  is  what  a  funeral  oration  should  be — an  account 
of  the  life  and  public  services  of  the  dead  soldier  or  civilian 
in  whose  honor  it  is  delivered.  The  influences  which  had 
moulded  Lincoln's  character,  his  family  history,  his  early 
privations,  were  all  touched  upon  by  Bancroft,  but  Blaine 
dwelt  upon  Garfield's  ancestry  and  his  early  life  with  great- 
er sympathy  and  greater  felicity.  Bancroft  did  not  idealize 
his  hero  as  much  as  he  should  have  done  and  would  have 
been  justified  in  doing.  Blaine  checked  with  judicious  but 
ample  words  the  extravagant  praise  of  Garfield  that  would 
then  have  been  excused  but  would  not  have  been  merited. 
His  analysis  of  Garfield's  mental  qualities  and  religious  pro- 
fessions is  clear  and  in  good  taste.  Mr.  Blaine  was  con- 
spicuously a  man  of  letters  and  of  literary  accomplishments. 
We  may  well  regret  that  the  task  which  fell  to  Bancroft 
in  1866  had  not  fallen  to  the  young  and  rising  statesman 
from  Maine.  Although  a  member  of  Garfield's  Cabinet,  and 
although  Garfield  was  struck  down  at  his  side,  Blaine  never 
refers  to  himself  in  his  whole  address.  The  peroration  forms 
one  of  the  most  eloquent  and  poetic  and  pathetic  passages 
in  the  English  language.  We  give  it  in  full  below. 

"  As  the  end  drew  near  his  early  craving  for  the  sea  re- 


HONORING  THE  MIGHTY  DEAD.  223 

turned.  The  stately  mansion  of  power  had  been  to  him  the 
wearisome  hospital  of  pain,  and  he  begged  to  be  taken  from 
its  prison  walls,  from  its  oppressive,  stifling  air,  from  its 
homelessness  and  its  hopelessness.  Gently,  silently,  the  love 
of  a  great  people  bore  the  pale  sufferer  to  the  longed-for 
healing  of  the  sea,  to  live  or  to  die,  as  God  should  will, 
within  sight  of  its  heaving  billows,  within  sound  of  its  man- 
ifold voices.  With  wan,  fevered  face,  tenderly  lifted  to  the 
cooling  breeze,  he  looked  out  wistfully  upon  the  ocean's 
changing  wonders ;  on  its  fair  sails,  whitening  in  the  morn- 
ing light ;  on  its  restless  waves,  rolling  shoreward  to  break 
and  die  beneath  the  noonday  sun ;  on  the  red  clouds  of  even- 
ing, arching  low  to  the  horizon;  on  the  serene  and  shining 
pathway  of  the  stars.  Let  us  think  that  his  dying  eyes 
read  a  mystic  meaning  which  only  the  rapt  and  parting  soul 
may  know.  Let  us  believe  that  in  the  silence  of  the  reced- 
ing world  he  heard  the  great  waves  breaking  on  a  farther 
shore,  and  felt  already  upon  his  wasted  brow  the  breath  of 
the  eternal  morning." 

Thoughtful  people  must  always  regret  that  the  memory  of 
Grant  was  not  so  promptly,  conspicuously,  and  appropriate- 
ly honored  as  that  of  Lincoln  and  Garfield.  The  display 
at  the  dedication  of  his  tomb  at  Riverside,  in  1897,  twelve 
years  after  his  death,  atoned  only  in  part  for  this  neglect. 
No  orator  and  no  essayist  has  yet  done  justice  to  the  char- 
acter and  services  of  this  great  man.  On  Thursday,  August 
20,  1890,  at  Mt.  McGregor,  New  York,  where  Grant  died  in 
1885,  President  Harrison  made  the  happiest  reference  to  the 
dead  hero  that  has  yet  been  made  anywhere.  He  said :  "  It 
has  been  said  that  a  great  life  went  out  here ;  but  great  lives, 
like  that  of  General  Grant,  do  not  go  out.  They  go  on." 


PEESOISTAL  INDEX. 


Page 

Acrelius,  Israel 140 

Adams,  John 70,  214,  216,  220 

Adams,  John  Quincy 213,  214 

Albert,  George  Dallas 176 

Alger,  General  Russell  A 207 

Allen,  Colonel  Ethan 137 

Allen,  Zachariah 110 

Allison,  William  B 100,  208 

Anne,  Queen .«*.  216 

Anshutz,  George "....  175 

Anthony,  Richard 110 

Appleton,  William 110 

Argyll,  Duke  of. 31 

Arthur,  .Chester  A 97,  116 

Ashe,  Thomas 171 

Ashton,  John 41 

Bailey,  Mr.  (Welsh  ironmaster)...    44 
Bancroft,  George..  1,  139,  220,  221,  222 

Bates,  Theodore  C 115 

Besant,  Annie 45 

Besant,  Walter 44 

Bigelow,  Erastus  B 17 

Binney,  Horace 215 

Bishop,  Dr.  J.  Leander 74 

Blackstone,  Sir  William 8,  12,  14 

Elaine,  James  G 58,  71,  93,  94,  114 

1%,  199,  202,  216,  220,  221,  222 

Booth,  James  C_ 151 

Booth,  General  William 46 

Borie,  John  J 110 

Bouquet,  Colonel  Henry 169,  170 

Bowen,  Professor  Francis 86,  87 

Braddock,  General  Edward 169 

Brassey.  Thomas 27 

Brewer,  J.  Hart 115 

Bright,  John 33,  49,  50 

Britton,  J.  Blodget 152 

Brooke,  Rev.  Stopford 46 

Brougham,  Lord 1,  73 


Page 

Brown,  Edward 152 

Browne,  Charles  F 209 

Buchanan,  James...  75,  79,  9p,  92,  207 

Burke,  Edmund 55 

Burnett,  John 38 

Butler,  General  Benjamin  F 95 

Byles,  Sir  John  Barnard.....  28,  29,  36 
54,  56 

Carey,  Henry  C...  18,  92,  113,  132,  214 

Carey,  Mathew 107,  108,  109,  110 

Carlisle,  John  G. ...  97,  98,  99,  125,  126 

Carnegie,  Andrew 176 

Carroll,  Charles,  of  Carrollton..213,  216 

Cary,  Phoebe  and  Alice 209 

Cass,  Lewis 207,  208 

Chambers,  Thomas 112 

Chapman,  T.  J 176 

Charles  1 30,  54 

Charles  H 11,  12,  16 

Chase,  Salmon  P 207 

Chatham,  Lord 15 

Clay,  Henry 2,  75,  76,  77,  78,  80 

107,  111,  206,  220 

Cleveland,  Grover 80,  98,  99,  100 

101,  102,  129,  130,  182,  208,  220 

Cobbett,  William 56 

Cobden,  Richard 49,  50,  51 

Coleman,  Dr.  L.  H 75 

Colfax,  Schuyler 202,  204,  205 

Colwell,  Stephen 113 

Converse,  George  L 98 

Cooke,  Jay 80 

Cooper  &  Hewitt 84,  85,  113 

Cooper,  James  M 117 

Cooper,  Peter 84,  114 

Corning,  Gurdon 110 

Corwin,  Thomas 207 

Covert,  James  W 95,  96 

Covode,  John 221 


226 


PERSONAL  INDEX. 


Cowan,  Christopher 175 

Cox,  Jacob  D 207 

Cox,  Samuel  S 210 

Craig,  Major  Isaac 170 

Craig,  Neville  B 171,  176 

Craig  &  O'Hara 174 

Crawford,  Thomas  H 76 

Crisp,  Charles  F 102 

Cromwell,  Oliver 11 

Cunard,  Samuel 65,  66 

Custer,  General  George  A 208 

Dallas,  George  M 78 

Dalzell,  John 108 

Davidson,  Professor  Thomas 23 

Davis,  Jefferson 53 

Davis,  John 77 

Dawes,  Henry  L 94 

Delano,  Columbus 114,  207 

Dennison,  William 207 

Dingley,  Nelson,  Jr. 105 

Dinwiddie,  Governor  Robert.  167,  168 

Disraeli,  Benjamin 44 

Dixon,  Nathan  F 110 

Dobson,  James 114 

Dodge,  William  E 40,  41 

Durfee,  William  F 151 

Eckert,  George  N 116 

Ecuyer,  Captain  Simeon 170 

Edison,  Thomas  A 208 

Edward  III 8,  9 

Edward  IV 8 

Elder,  Cyrus 115,  116 

Elder,  Dr.  William 14,  19 

Elizabeth,  Queen 3,  7,  9,  10,  12,  54 

Elkins,  Stephen  B 208 

Everett,  Alexander  H 110,  111 

Ewing,  Thomas 109,  207 

Fillmore,  Millard 89 

Fraley,  Frederick 215,  217 

Francis,  Colonel 173 

Franklin,  Benjamin...  70, 137,  215,  216 

Forbes,  General  John 169,  171 

Forward,  Walter 109,  110 

Foster,  Charles 207,  208 

Frick,  Henry  C 176 

Gage,  General  Thomas 170 


Page 

Gallatin,  Albert Ill 

Garfleld,  James  A 207,  209,  220 

221,  222,  223 

Garfleld,  Samuel 110 

Geary,  Governor  John  W 166 

Geary,  Richard 166 

George  1 12,  13 

George  II 13,  15 

George  III 13,  212,  216 

Giddings,  Joshua  R 207 

Gladstone,  William  E.  28,  48,  49,  53,  60 

Gorman,  Arthur  P 103 

Granger,  Francis 109 

Grant,  General  U.  S 205,  207,  208 

219,  220,  223 

Greeley,  Horace 115,  221 

Greene,  General  Nathanael 137 

Grinnell,  James  B 115 

Guthrie,  James 79,  125 

Haldeman,  James  M 110 

Hallam,  Henry 7 

Halstead,  Murat r. 209 

Hamilton,  Alexander 70,  71,  107 

108,  148 

Harmon,  Judson 207,  208 

Harrison,  Benjamin 99,  196,  198 

207,  223 

Harrison,  Benjamin  (Signer) 212 

Harrison,  William  Henry 206,  207 

208,  212,  215,  220 

Haskell,  Dudley  C 221 

Hayes,  John  L 97 

Hayes,  Rutherford  B 207,  209 

Henry  VIII 9,  10,  54 

Hewitt,  Abram  S..  84,  85,  113,  117,  153 

Hite,  A.  J 162 

Hoar,  Samuel 110 

Holliday,  John  163,  165 

Howell,  Benjamin  B no 

Howells,  William  Dean 209 

Huskisson,  William 32 

Huxley,  Professor  Thomas  H 32 

Ingersoll,  Charles  J 109 

Irvin,  General  James 116 

Jackson,  Andrew..  75,  99,  207,  213,  220 

Jackson,  General  Thomas  J 206 

Jarrett,  John 115 


PERSONAL  INDEX. 


227 


Page 
Jefferson,  Thomas..  70, 108,  111,  217,  220 

Johnson,  Edward  T 115 

Johnston,  General  Joseph  E 206 

Jones,  A.  H 115 

Jones,  A.  M UO 

Jones,  B.  F 114,  176 

Jones,  John  P 71 

Kay,  Joseph 29,  30,  43,  44 

Keifer,  Joseph  Warren 97,  207 

Kelley,  William  D 11,  65,  91,  96 

97,  99,  114,  115,  221 

Kennedy,  John  P 110 

Kerr,  Michael  C 95,  154 

Kingsley,  Charles 49,  50 

Lafayette,  Marquis  de....  212,  215,  217 

Lamborn,  Robert  H ^  117 

Lawrence,  Abbott 109,  110 

Lee,  Arthur 172 

Lee,  General  Robert  E 206 

Lesley,  Professor  J.  P 116 

Lewis,  Ellis 110 

Lincoln,  Abraham 80,  99,  137,  176 

219,  220,  221,  223 

Lincoln,  Daniel 137 

Lincoln,  Mordecai 137 

Livingston,  Peter  R 110 

Locke,  David  R 209 

Loring,  George  B 114 

Lytle,  Colonel  William  H 209 

Mac  Carthy,  (Commissioner)....  54,  55 
Macpherson,    (Annals    of    Com- 
merce)       4 

McClurg,  Joseph 175 

McCooks 208 

McCulloch,  (Commercial  Diction- 
ary)   15,  17 

McDowell,  General  Inrin 208 

McKay,  Nathaniel 38 

McKinley,  William 49,  50,  82 

100,  105,  114,  207,  208,  209 

McLean,  John 207 

McPherson,  General  James  B 208 

Madison,  James 70,  71,  99 

Ill,  213,  216,  217 

Mallary,  Rollin  C 109 

Manning,  Cardinal 50 

Marshall,  John. 215,  217 


Page 

Marshall,  Samuel  S 154 

Mary,  Queen 7 

Meagher,  Thomas  Francis 59 

Meigs,  Return  J 207 

Merrick,  8.  V. 110 

Miller,  Warner 114 

Mills,  Roger  Q 98,  99 

Mitchel,  General  O.  M 209 

Monroe,  James 213,  215,  217 

Morrell,  Charles  H UO 

Merrill,  Justin  8..  92,  201,  213,  214,  217 
Morrison,  William  R 95,  96,  97,  98 

Napier,  Lord 31 

Nasby,  Petroleum  V 209 

Niles,  Hezekiah UO 

Noble,  John 34 

Noble,  John  W 207,  208 

Paine,  Elijah. 214,  217 

Palmerston,  Lord 221 

Parnell,  Sir  Henry 20 

Parsons,  W.  J 85 

Patterson,  General  Robert. 75 

Penn,  John 173 

Penn,  Thomas 173 

Peto,  Sir  8.  Morton. 33 

Phelps,  Edward  J 218 

Pierce,  Franklin 90,  180 

Pitkin,  Timothy 137,  139 

Pitt,  William 169 

Polk,  James  K 78,  83 

Post,  Christian  Frederick in 

Proctor,  Isaac 161,  162,  163 

164,  165,  166 

Prosser,  Colonel  William  F 68 

Quay,  Matthew  S 101,  103 

Rahm  &  Bean 165 

Randall,  Samuel  J..  94,  95,  98,  99,  221 

Reed,  Thomas  B 100,  105 

Reeves,  Benjamin 110 

Reeves,  David no 

Reeves,  Samuel  J 117 

Reid,  Whitelaw- 209 

Ricketson,  John  H 114 

Riley,  James  Whitcomb 210 

Ritner,  Joseph 109 

Roach,  John 65,  66,  115 

Robbins,  Ashur 109 


228 


PERSONAL  INDEX. 


Page 

Roberts,  Jonathan 110 

Robinson,  Mr.  (member  of  Parlia- 
ment)      2 

Rodgers,  James 112 

Rodgers,  Thomas 110 

Rogers,  Professor  J.  E.  Thorold...    84 

Rosecrans,  General  W.  S 208 

Rusk,  Jeremiah  M 207,  208 

Ruskin,  John 45 

Schenck,  General  Robert  C.  93,  94,  208 

Scott,  John 94 

Scott,  General  Winfield 180,  206 

Scranton,  Joseph  H 117 

Scriven,  Colonel  John 115 

Scrivenor,  (History  of  the  Iron 

Trade) 19 

Seward,  Asabel 110 

Shaftesbury,  Lord 38,  39 

Shaler,  Charles 112 

Shallenberger,  W.  S 115 

Shaw-Lefevre,  Mr 28 

Sheffield,  Lord 1 

Sheridan,  General  Philip  H 208 

Sherman,  John 81,  102,  207 

Sherman,  General  W.  T 208,  218 

Shoenberger,  Dr.  Peter 164 

Shunk,  Francis  R 78 

Simmons,  James  F 110 

Simpson,  Matthew 208 

Smith,  Charles  E 113,  116 

Smith,  Wellington 115 

Stanberry,  Henry 207 

Stanton,  Edwin  M 207 

Stanwix,  General  John 169 

Stebbins,  Giles  B 115 

Stevens,  Thaddeus 221 

Stewart,  Andrew 76,  112 

Stewart,  John  and  Mathew 175 

Stowe,  Harriet  Beecher 209 

Sullivan,  Sir  Edward 34 

Swayne,  Noah  H 207 

Swift,  Dean 55 

Taft,  Alphonso 207 

Tallmadge,  James 110 

Taylor,  General  Richard 119 

Taylor,  Zachary 206,  220 

Thomas,  David 145 


Page 

Thomas,  General  George  H 206 

Thompson,  Richard  W 216,  217 

Thompson,  Robert  Ellis 16,  59 

Thurman,  Allen  G 207 

Tilghman,  Mr 174 

Tillman,  George  D 118 

Tod,  John 74 

Tourgee,  Albion  W 209 

Towne,  John  H 116 

Trent,  Captain  William 168 

Tyler,  John 83 

Victoria,  Queen 22,  23,  24,  29,  34 

...  36,  42,  43,  44,  46,  48,  49,  51,  53,  61 
Voorhees,  Daniel  W 102 

Wade,  Benjamin  F 207 

Waite,  Morrison  R 207 

Walker,  Robert  J 78,  83,  84 

Wallace,  Edward 80 

Ward,  Artemus 209 

Ward,  Captain  E.  B 117 

Washington,  Augustine 137,  167 

Washington,  George...  70,  71,  137,  167 

168,  169,  171,  172,  211,  212 

213,  214,  215,  216,  218,  220 

Washington,  Lawrence 167 

Waugh,  Rev.  Benjamin 4.2 

Wayne,  General  Anthony 171 

Webster,  Daniel 70,  220 

Webster,  Ezekiel 109 

Welles,  Gideon 109 

Wetherill,  J.  P 110 

Wharton,  Deborah  Fisher 214 

Wharton,  Joseph 114,  115,  215 

Wheeler,  Charles 117 

Wilkeson,  Samuel 202,  204,  205 

Wilkins,  William 110 

William  in 12,  14,  54,  55 

Wilson,  William  L 81,  102 

Windom,  William 207 

Wingate,  Paine 213,  216 

Winthrop,  Robert  C 212,  213 

Wirt,  William 206 

Wood,  Charles  S 117 

Wood,  Fernando 95 

Young,  Dr.  Edward 35 

Zincke,  F.  Barham 31 


DC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LBRARY  FACILITY 

in  i  mil 


